Gstaad Hotels insolvency: Former director moves Supreme Court against appellate tribunal order

A former director of Gstaad Hotels Pvt. Ltd, which previously owned the JW Marriott Hotel in Bengaluru, has moved the Supreme Court challenging an appellate tribunal’s order that upheld insolvency proceedings against the hospitality firm.

Mint has seen a copy of the petition filed by Deepak Raheja.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in July directed initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against Mumbai-based Gstaad Hotels after one of the company’s financial creditors, Omkara Asset Reconstruction, moved the bankruptcy court over dues worth ₹666 crore.

In August, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision to declare Gstaad Hotels bankrupt.

“The ARC (Omkara Asset Reconstruction), having stepped into the shoes of the original lender, was bound to establish its locus and compliance with the mandatory requirements of law, which it has failed to do,” Raheja stated in his petition filed before the Supreme Court last week. “The (insolvency) proceedings initiated by such an entity are, therefore, a nullity in the eyes of law.”

Per Raheja’s petition, Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd had originally extended a credit facility to Gstaad Hotels. However, the loan was assigned to Omkara Asset Reconstruction later by way of a loan assignment deed, it stated.

‘Inflated claims’

Raheja added in his petition that he was in the process of invoking the jurisdiction of the NCLT under section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against what he alleged were exaggerated and inflated claims by Omkara. Section 60(5) of IBC grants NCLT exclusive jurisdiction over all matters related to the insolvency resolution of a corporate debtor.

“Without prejudice to the rights and contentions in that proceeding, it is submitted that the alleged quantum of debt is grossly overstated, and inclusion of inadmissible amounts has artificially inflated the claim to justify the CIRP,” Raheja’s petition stated.

“The lower tribunal (NCLT) transgressed from its remand directions while passing its order on 8 July 2025,” he said in the petition. NCLAT had earlier remanded the case back but on limited issues that were not fully decided. However, instead of focusing on those specific points, the tribunal re-examined the entire case, including matters that had already been settled, Raheja added.

This, he claimed, violated the legal principle that prevents re-opening issues that were already conclusively decided.