Up Hotels reported a net profit of ₹2.69 crore for the quarter ended June 30, 2026, marking a 17% decline from the ₹3.25 crore recorded in the corresponding period of FY25. Despite the drop in bottom-line figures, the company’s revenue from operations grew by 4% to ₹29.94 crore, up from ₹28.86 crore in Q1FY25.

The Board of Directors approved the unaudited financial results during a meeting held on August 13, 2026. The figures were reviewed by Satinder Goyal & Co., Chartered Accountants, who issued a limited review report stating that nothing came to their attention to suggest material misstatement.

Operational Performance

Revenue growth was offset by an increase in operating expenses. Employee benefit expenses rose to ₹9.38 crore from ₹8.50 crore year-ago, while other expenses increased significantly to ₹7.77 crore from ₹6.27 crore. Power and fuel costs remained relatively stable at ₹3.11 crore, compared to ₹3.16 crore in Q1FY25.

Earnings per share stood at ₹5.00, down from ₹6.03 in the previous year’s quarter. The company operates solely in the hotel business segment.

What the Numbers Show

A divergence between revenue growth and expense inflation is evident in the Q1FY26 results. While revenue from operations expanded by nearly 4%, total expenses grew at a faster pace of almost 9%. This compression was primarily driven by a 23.9% increase in other expenses (from ₹6.27 crore to ₹7.77 crore) and a 10.4% rise in employee benefits. Consequently, despite higher top-line performance, the profit before tax contracted by ₹74.47 lakh, highlighting margin pressure amidst rising operational costs.

Regulatory and Corporate Updates

The company noted ongoing disputes between promoters during the period but stated that these disagreements do not have a material financial impact on the reported results. Additionally, Up Hotels has begun recognizing the impact of India’s four new Labour Codes—effective November 21, 2025—in its employee benefit expenses based on actuarial valuations. The management continues to evaluate further impacts as detailed implementation rules are notified.

U. P. Hotels Limited failed to secure shareholder approval for its proposal to extend the timeline for voluntarily delisting equity shares from BSE Limited. The special resolution, put to a postal ballot, did not receive the requisite majority, as detailed in the scrutinizer's report dated July 3, 2026. Consequently, the company cannot proceed with the application to SEBI for the requested time extension.

The remote e-voting process commenced on June 3, 2026, and concluded on July 2, 2026. A total of 68 shareholders participated, casting 1,209,217 valid votes. The voting rights of the Promoter and Promoter Group were subject to restrictions imposed by a SEBI order dated June 4, 2013, due to non-compliance with minimum public shareholding requirements. This order limited the promoters' voting rights to 39.41% of their shareholding.

Voting Results Breakdown

The resolution required a special majority to pass. While the aggregate votes showed a majority in favour, the specific regulatory requirements regarding promoter voting rights and the overall approval threshold were not met. The table below details the voting pattern across different categories.

Regulatory Constraints on Promoter Voting

The SEBI order dated June 4, 2013, played a critical role in the final outcome. The Promoter and Promoter Group held 4,772,960 equity shares, but their voting rights were capped at 1,881,120 shares, representing 39.41% of their holding. This restriction significantly impacted the total votes considered for the resolution. Of the total votes polled, 1,099,076 were attributed to the promoters under the SEBI order formula.

Deepak Bansal, a Practicing Company Secretary appointed as the Scrutinizer, confirmed that the postal ballot process was conducted fairly and transparently. The report explicitly states that the special resolution was "Not Approved." The results have been disclosed on the company's website and the BSE Limited website. The failure of this resolution means the voluntary delisting process, as proposed, cannot proceed with the requested extension.