Hunger Pangs Limited IPO

01At a glance

What the company does: owns and runs "Burma Burma Restaurant & Tea Room", a casual dining chain serving vegetarian Burmese food with no alcohol, with 22 restaurants in nine cities and one delivery kitchen in Mumbai at July 31, 2026, all company-owned and company-operated (DRHP p.176, DRHP p.177, DRHP p.25).

Who pays it: individual diners, at an average bill of ₹2,400 excluding taxes in FY26 (DRHP p.188). Dine-in brought 88.82% of FY26 revenue and delivery through Swiggy, Zomato and other platforms 10.76% (DRHP p.177). The company says it does not depend on any single customer or a few customers (DRHP p.308).

Why it is raising money: ₹117.3 crore of the fresh issue is earmarked for 27 new Burma Burma restaurants in FY28 and FY29, and the balance for general corporate purposes (DRHP p.103, DRHP p.106). The offer for sale proceeds go to the nine selling shareholders, not the company (DRHP p.103).

How fast it has grown: revenue from operations from ₹71.9 crore in FY24 to ₹155.5 crore in FY26, about 47.0% a year (our arithmetic, DRHP p.65). The restated result was a loss of ₹5.7 crore in FY24, ₹0.51 crore in FY25 and ₹15.4 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.65).

The one thing to understand: the restaurants earn cash at the operating level but the company reports losses after depreciation and lease interest. FY26 EBITDA was ₹25.7 crore and operating cash flow ₹35.3 crore, while depreciation and amortisation was ₹39.4 crore and the loss after tax ₹15.4 crore (DRHP p.65, DRHP p.66). Under Ind AS lease accounting, rent paid on its leased premises sits largely in depreciation and finance cost, and ₹23.6 crore of lease repayments sat in financing cash flow in FY26 (DRHP p.66, DRHP p.290).

02The business, in plain words

What Hunger Pangs does

The company was incorporated in Mumbai as Hunger Pangs Private Limited on October 9, 2013 and became Hunger Pangs Limited with a fresh certificate dated August 17, 2026 (DRHP p.207). The first Burma Burma restaurant opened in Mumbai in 2014, delivery began on Zomato in 2016, the first restaurants in the north, south and east opened in 2016, 2018 and 2020, and the Burma Burma Shop, a website for packaged teas, snacks and ice cream, launched in 2021 (DRHP p.208, DRHP p.177).

The chain, as the document describes it (DRHP p.189, DRHP p.192, DRHP p.193):

• Buying inputs: ingredients from 334 suppliers at June 30, 2026, including Burmese specialty items such as fermented soya bean disc, laphet and tohu, distributed through three warehouses in Bhiwandi, Bengaluru and New Delhi and ten storerooms (DRHP p.192, DRHP p.36).
• Cooking: there is no central kitchen; each restaurant cooks on site from 139 standardised recipes (DRHP p.190, DRHP p.180).
• Serving: in rented premises: 12 restaurants in premium malls, 4 on high streets and 5 in corporate parks at June 30, 2026 (DRHP p.181).
• Getting paid: diners pay at the table; delivery orders come through aggregator platforms (DRHP p.177).

A diner in Bengaluru or Mumbai books a table → eats from a vegetarian Burmese menu with teas and desserts → the restaurant cooks it fresh on site → the company is paid the bill, about ₹2,400 for an average bill in FY26 (DRHP p.188).

All restaurants are owned and run by the company, with no franchises (DRHP p.189). Each restaurant has its own Burma-inspired design, and all operational restaurants were designed by a single architect engaged since the start (DRHP p.193). Leases run three to nine years; at the date of the DRHP three restaurants paid a fixed rent and 19 paid the higher of a fixed rent and a share of revenue (DRHP p.193). The company owns no immovable property (DRHP p.197).

The workforce was 1,715 at June 30, 2026: 1,574 full-time employees, 738 of them in kitchens and 619 in service, and 141 contract staff (DRHP p.194, DRHP p.195). The company is developing a second brand, a Japanese restaurant and noodle shop concept, which it describes but does not cost (DRHP p.186).

Earnings equation: Dine-in revenue = covers served × average spend per cover. The document gives both: 1.18 million dine-in covers in FY26 at an average of ₹1,165.04 per cover, excluding taxes (DRHP p.188). Section 04 uses them.

03Where the money comes from

By channel, share of revenue from operations (DRHP p.297, DRHP p.194):

Delivery revenue was ₹16.7 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.187). By category, food was 72.54% of FY26 revenue, beverages 12.95%, desserts 6.54%, teas 0.73% and the Burma Burma Shop 0.37% (DRHP p.182).

By city, share of revenue from operations (DRHP p.31):

Hunger Pangs customers: how concentrated the revenue is

Source: DRHP p.31; the top three cities row is our arithmetic (our arithmetic, DRHP p.31). The customers are individual diners, and the document says revenue comes from a large number of them and does not depend on a few (DRHP p.308). Read from the filing: revenue does not depend on a few customers, in numbers; the concentration is in one brand and three cities, which brought about 81.4% of FY26 revenue (our arithmetic, DRHP p.31).

On the supply side, the ten largest suppliers were 49.40% of food and beverage materials in FY26, against 42.50% in FY24, and no supplier was above 10% of volume in FY26 (DRHP p.192). Swiggy and Zomato carry the delivery channel; the document does not give the commission paid to them as a share of delivery sales.

04The growth record

Hunger Pangs financials: revenue, profit and margins

Source: DRHP p.65, DRHP p.66, DRHP p.64, DRHP p.115, DRHP p.114, AP p.7, AP p.8, converted from ₹ million. Revenue from operations went from ₹71.9 crore in FY24 to ₹155.5 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.65). Profit after tax went from a loss of ₹5.7 crore in FY24 to a loss of ₹15.4 crore in FY26, so −₹5.7 cr → −₹15.4 cr (DRHP p.65).

The company's EBITDA adds finance cost and depreciation to profit before tax and takes out other income (DRHP p.115). For the three months to June 30, 2026, revenue was ₹53.7 crore, EBITDA ₹11.4 crore and profit after tax ₹1.1 crore, after a deferred tax credit of ₹2.0 crore on a loss before tax of ₹0.89 crore (DRHP p.65).

Our arithmetic over FY24 to FY26: revenue grew about 47.0% a year (our arithmetic, DRHP p.65), against the company's own 47.05% (DRHP p.177); EBITDA grew about 61.4% a year (our arithmetic, DRHP p.115). EBITDA margin moved from 13.71% to 16.51%, up 280 basis points, so 13.7% → 16.5% rounded (DRHP p.115). Year by year, revenue rose 47.53% in FY25 and 46.56% in FY26 (DRHP p.115).

Profit growth cannot be stated as a rate because each year is a loss. The DRHP's KPI table carries no return on capital employed; the commissioned industry report prints −25.28%, 3.80% and −29.81% for FY24 to FY26, figures this study could not reproduce from the restated statements (DRHP p.166).

Two notes on the table. First, FY24 and FY25 come from special purpose Ind AS statements and FY26 from the first audited Ind AS statements; leases are restated under Ind AS 116 from the start, so lease payments appear as depreciation of right-of-use assets and interest on lease liabilities, and their repayment sits in financing cash flow (DRHP p.299, DRHP p.290). Second, the loss widened in FY26 because depreciation and amortisation rose by ₹19.4 crore and finance cost by ₹2.7 crore as nine restaurants opened, the company says (DRHP p.303). The auditor, Jain V. & Co., reports no qualification requiring adjustment (AP p.11).

What sits around the record:

• Cash and leases: operating cash flow was ₹35.3 crore in FY26, ₹16.5 crore in FY25 and ₹17.0 crore in FY24 (DRHP p.66). Lease liabilities repaid were ₹23.6 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.66). Depreciation and amortisation was ₹39.4 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.65).
• Debt and cash: borrowings were ₹0.01 crore at March 31, 2026 against cash and cash equivalents of ₹18.0 crore (DRHP p.64). Lease liabilities were ₹75.8 crore at March 31, 2026 (DRHP p.306). Return on net worth was −24.00% in FY26, so −24.0% (DRHP p.114).
• Money owed by customers: the balance sheet shows no trade receivables at any year end, because diners pay at the table (DRHP p.64). Working capital days were −49 in FY26, as the commissioned report computes them (DRHP p.167).
• Concentration: Bengaluru was 32.02% of FY26 revenue, so 32.0% (DRHP p.31). The three largest cities were 81.4% of FY26 revenue (our arithmetic, DRHP p.31). The ten largest suppliers were 49.40% of FY26 food and beverage materials, so 49.4% (DRHP p.192). Delivery was 10.76% of FY26 revenue, so 10.8% (DRHP p.177).
• Restaurant economics: restaurant-level EBITDA margin was 29.95% in FY26, same-store sales growth 2.27% and rent 21.83% of revenue (DRHP p.188).
• People: overall employee attrition was 48.35% in FY26 (DRHP p.28).
• Related parties: related-party transactions were ₹13.4 crore in FY26, 8.63% of revenue, mostly personal guarantees by the two promoters (DRHP p.49, DRHP p.69).
• Contingent liabilities: a disputed GST demand of ₹0.12 crore and capital commitments of ₹18.8 crore at June 30, 2026 (DRHP p.67).
• Cases: against the promoters, one indirect tax case of ₹0.12 crore (DRHP p.319).
• Industry: casual dining restaurants, which is Hotels, restaurants and travel in the fixed list (DRHP p.176).

05What the growth is made of

Dine-in sales rose from ₹57.7 crore in FY24 to ₹87.5 crore in FY25 and ₹128.1 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.303, DRHP p.302). The document gives covers and spend per cover, so the increase can be split:

• Volume: dine-in covers rose from 0.58 million in FY24 to 1.18 million in FY26, about 42.6% a year by the company's figure (DRHP p.188).
• Spend per cover: average spend per cover, excluding taxes, rose from ₹1,061.39 to ₹1,165.04, about 4.8% a year (DRHP p.188).
• Split: at the FY24 spend per cover, the extra 0.60 million covers account for about ₹63.7 crore; the higher spend on FY26 covers accounts for about ₹12.3 crore (our arithmetic, DRHP p.188).

Read from the filing: about four fifths of the dine-in increase came from more covers. Covers times spend per cover gives about ₹137.5 crore for FY26, more than the ₹128.1 crore of dine-in sales reported; the document does not reconcile the two (our arithmetic, DRHP p.188, DRHP p.302).

New restaurants against existing ones: the network grew from 11 restaurants at March 2024 to 12 at March 2025 and 21 at March 2026, with 5, 1 and 9 opened in FY24, FY25 and FY26 (DRHP p.297). Same-store sales growth was 5.95%, 5.92% and 2.27% in FY24 to FY26 (DRHP p.188). Revenue per restaurant was ₹6.5 crore, ₹8.8 crore and ₹7.4 crore, as the commissioned report computes it on year-end counts (DRHP p.166).

The latest quarter: same-store sales growth was 21.35% in the three months to June 30, 2026 (DRHP p.188). In that quarter service charge was ₹2.5 crore, 4.60% of revenue, and the company stopped charging it from June 10, 2026 (DRHP p.301, DRHP p.299).

Seats and size: aggregate seating rose from 982 to 1,991 and average restaurant area from 2,513.27 to 3,182.67 square feet between FY24 and FY26 (DRHP p.188). There was no acquisition in the period (DRHP p.209).

06Earnings quality

The item that needs explaining is the gap between cash and profit. Over FY24 to FY26 operating cash flow added to ₹68.8 crore while lease repayments in financing added to ₹44.4 crore (our arithmetic, DRHP p.66). The company says the loss is mainly non-cash depreciation and amortisation and that its approved projections support using the deferred tax asset (DRHP p.315). The profit of ₹1.1 crore in the June 2026 quarter came after a deferred tax credit of ₹2.0 crore on a loss before tax of ₹0.89 crore (DRHP p.65).

Cost of materials was 20.84%, 18.97% and 19.53% of revenue in FY24 to FY26 (DRHP p.298). Total occupancy cost, being right-of-use depreciation, lease interest and rent and maintenance charges, was ₹13.4 crore, ₹19.9 crore and ₹35.6 crore, or 18.70%, 18.80% and 22.87% of revenue (DRHP p.298).

Statutory dues were paid late in some instances: four provident fund instances and ten TDS instances in FY26, with delays of up to 81 days for TDS (DRHP p.47). The company also records delays in filings with the Registrar of Companies and missing challans for some filings (DRHP p.49). The document records one past instance of cash stolen by an employee (DRHP p.45).

07The balance sheet

At March 31, 2026 total assets were ₹161.9 crore: property, plant and equipment ₹42.3 crore, mostly fit-outs, right-of-use assets ₹73.7 crore, deposits and other financial assets ₹10.4 crore, deferred tax asset ₹9.8 crore, inventories ₹3.0 crore and cash ₹18.0 crore (DRHP p.64). Against them: lease liabilities ₹75.8 crore, trade payables ₹7.2 crore, other liabilities, and total equity of ₹64.1 crore (DRHP p.64, DRHP p.306).

Source: DRHP p.64, DRHP p.306, DRHP p.61; the right column adds the ₹150.0 crore gross fresh issue (our arithmetic, DRHP p.64, DRHP p.61). Offer expenses are not yet stated, so the net proceeds are lower than shown (DRHP p.109). The capitalisation statement leaves the after-offer column blank (DRHP p.293).

Borrowings were ₹12.3 crore at March 2024 and were mostly repaid in FY25 (DRHP p.306, DRHP p.66). At July 31, 2026 the company had two drop-line overdraft facilities from Kotak Mahindra Bank and Axis Bank with a sanctioned limit of ₹7.6 crore and nothing drawn (DRHP p.294). The promoters gave personal guarantees of ₹4.5 crore each in FY26 (DRHP p.69, DRHP p.70). Lease liabilities due within a year were ₹21.5 crore at March 2026 (DRHP p.306). Rent security deposits were ₹9.3 crore at June 30, 2026 (DRHP p.298).

Contingent liabilities at June 30, 2026 were a GST demand of ₹0.12 crore for FY2018, under appeal, and capital commitments of ₹18.8 crore for restaurants under construction (DRHP p.67).

08What the money is for

Hunger Pangs IPO objects: what the money is for

Source: DRHP p.103, DRHP p.104; the percentage is our arithmetic on the ₹150.0 crore gross fresh issue (our arithmetic, DRHP p.103).

New restaurants: the plan is 12 restaurants in FY28 and 15 in FY29, about 3,000 square feet each, at an estimated ₹14,480.45 a square foot, or about ₹4.3 crore a restaurant, ₹52.1 crore in FY28 and ₹65.2 crore in FY29 (DRHP p.106, DRHP p.107). Deployment is scheduled at ₹10.0 crore in FY27 for advance fit-out payments, ₹54.6 crore in FY28 and ₹52.7 crore in FY29 (DRHP p.103, DRHP p.104).

The costs are certified by an independent architect, Ar. Kaushal Anish Chouhan, from vendor quotations; no orders have been placed and no bank or agency has appraised them (DRHP p.104, DRHP p.29). Letters of intent are signed for sites in Bengaluru, Surat, Jaipur, Kolkata and Delhi; the remaining sites are not yet identified, and security deposits for the leases will not be paid from the proceeds (DRHP p.106).

For comparison, the company spent an average of ₹4.7 crore of capital on each restaurant in FY26 and gives an average payback period of 3.81 years (DRHP p.188).

Pre-IPO placement: the company may place up to ₹30.0 crore of shares before the RHP; any amount raised reduces the fresh issue (DRHP p.61).

Into the business up to ₹150.0 crore (fresh issue), before offer expenses (DRHP p.61). To selling shareholders 27,929,760 shares; the amount depends on a price not yet set (DRHP p.61).

09Who is selling

Hunger Pangs IPO offer for sale: who is selling

Source: DRHP p.62, DRHP p.98, AP p.10; shares before are on a fully diluted basis, and the last column is our arithmetic (our arithmetic, DRHP p.62, AP p.10). The offer for sale is 27,929,760 shares, about 18.1% of the 154,312,620 shares outstanding before the offer on a fully diluted basis (our arithmetic, DRHP p.61). Some of the offered shares are now compulsorily convertible preference shares that convert before the RHP (DRHP p.62). Beside the offer for sale, the company issues new shares for up to ₹150.0 crore (DRHP p.61).

Weighted average cost of acquisition per share, as certified by the statutory auditor: negligible for the two promoters; ₹11.90 for Bbigplas Poly Private Limited and L V Angel Fund; ₹13.18 for Negen Tech Opportunities Angel Fund; ₹12.82 for Venture Catalysts Angel Growth Fund; ₹19.37 for the three individuals (DRHP p.1, AP p.10).

10Promoters

The promoters are Ankit Virendra Gupta and Chirag Narendra Chhajer, so identified by a board resolution of September 18, 2026; there has been no change in control in five years (DRHP p.228, DRHP p.229).

• Ankit Virendra Gupta, 39, Joint Managing Director, a director since incorporation, with about 17 years in food service, previously with The Taj Mahal Palace & Tower, Mumbai, and responsible for restaurant operations, marketing, brand and culinary research (DRHP p.212, AP p.5).
• Chirag Narendra Chhajer, 38, Joint Managing Director, a director since incorporation, with about 12 years of experience, responsible for operations, processes and finance; also a director of Bachhraj Impex Private Limited, Chirag Silk Mills Private Limited and Chhajer Synthetics Private Limited (DRHP p.212, AP p.5).

The board has four independent directors, including the chairman, Shivakumar Dega, appointed July 27, 2026 (DRHP p.212). The chief financial officer, Vishnu Kumar Agarwal, has been with the company since 2014 and was designated CFO on August 29, 2026 (DRHP p.225).

Pay: director remuneration to the two promoters was ₹1.0 crore in FY24 and ₹1.7 crore in FY26 (our arithmetic, DRHP p.68). In FY26 Ankit Virendra Gupta received ₹1.1 crore and Chirag Narendra Chhajer ₹0.59 crore (DRHP p.214, DRHP p.215). Current terms are ₹0.13 crore a month and ₹0.11 crore a month respectively, plus perquisites (DRHP p.214, DRHP p.215).

Relatives on the payroll and rent: the document states that Ishu Suyash Dhakras is the spouse of Ankit Virendra Gupta and is paid as the company's marketing head, and that Vasudha Chirag Chhajer, spouse of Chirag Narendra Chhajer, and Urmila Virendra Gupta, mother of Ankit Virendra Gupta, have consultancy agreements (DRHP p.229, DRHP p.230). The Mumbai delivery kitchen is licensed from Virendra Kalicharan Gupta, father of Ankit Virendra Gupta, until November 30, 2026, for rent of ₹0.18 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.229, DRHP p.69).

The brand name: Ankit Virendra Gupta assigned the Burma Burma class 43 trademark to the company in October 2022 for ₹0.02 crore, with an earlier arrangement to take it back for the same sum if the business stopped (DRHP p.210). A right of first refusal agreement of October 15, 2026 replaces that arrangement: Ankit Virendra Gupta may acquire all Burma Burma marks at fair market value if the Burmese restaurant business closes or the company proposes to transfer or let any mark lapse; the earlier arrangement returns if the offer is not completed (DRHP p.210, DRHP p.211).

Other businesses: the promoter group lists 27 entities, including Bbigplas Poly Private Limited, a selling shareholder, and Kkalpana Plastick Limited, a BSE-listed company whose promoters Bbigplas Poly Private Limited and Sarla Surana agreed on July 7, 2026 to transfer 72.58% to Ashish Begwani at ₹28.00 a share (DRHP p.230, DRHP p.231). Chirag Narendra Chhajer left AVC Enterprises LLP on October 9, 2025 (DRHP p.230).

Pledges: none of the promoters' shares are pledged or encumbered (DRHP p.90).

Promoter economics: each promoter subscribed 5,000 shares at ₹10 in 2013 and received 495,000 bonus shares in November 2019 and 49,009,100 in September 2026 (DRHP p.91, DRHP p.92). Each sold 6,145 shares at ₹2,034 a share of face value ₹10 on February 15, 2025 and 3,764 shares at ₹3,321 on March 30, 2026, about ₹1.25 crore each time (DRHP p.87, DRHP p.88; our arithmetic).

Swati Raj Agrawal, a sister of Ankit Virendra Gupta, bought the March 2026 shares (DRHP p.88, DRHP p.230). The weighted average cost of all shares acquired in the last one year is ₹3.28 a share and in the last three years ₹5.50, in a range of nil to ₹31.63 (DRHP p.93).

11Who already owns it

Hunger Pangs promoter holding before and after the IPO

Source: DRHP p.100, DRHP p.98; fully diluted, after conversion of all preference shares; the promoter group and all other rows are our arithmetic (our arithmetic, DRHP p.100). Promoters hold 102,919,110 shares, 66.70%, so 66.7%, and promoters and promoter group together 70.50% of 154,312,620 fully diluted shares (DRHP p.92, DRHP p.97). Before conversion, 109,381,650 equity shares are outstanding and 427,914 preference shares convert into up to 44,930,970 more before the RHP (DRHP p.61).

There are 24 equity shareholders and 86 preference shareholders (DRHP p.98). After the offer for sale and before the new shares, the promoters would hold 90,919,110 shares, 58.92% of the pre-offer fully diluted count (our arithmetic, DRHP p.92, DRHP p.62); the after-offer holding is left blank until the price is set (DRHP p.100).

When the outside holders came in, at the price per share after the split, bonus and conversion (DRHP p.82, DRHP p.83, DRHP p.84, DRHP p.86, DRHP p.87):

• Series A, November 2022 and February 2023: ₹11.90 a share, to Negen Tech Opportunities Angel Fund, Bbigplas Poly Private Limited, Venture Catalysts Angel Growth Fund, L V Angel Fund and others.
• Series A1, July 2024: ₹19.26 a share. Series B, December 2024: ₹19.37 a share, including Negen Undiscovered Value Fund and Vasudha Chirag Chhajer.
• Series C, January 9, 2026: ₹31.63 a share, ₹30.7 crore for 92,331 preference shares (our arithmetic, DRHP p.84), led by Negen Undiscovered Value Fund.
• Series C1, March 14, 2026: ₹31.63 a share, to Negen Undiscovered Value Fund, Oceanic Pharmachem Private Limited and Endurance Capital Fund I.

Convertible notes of ₹6.75 crore issued in October 2023 converted into 41,730 shares at ₹1,617.60 each, face value ₹10, in July 2024 (DRHP p.81). A shareholders' agreement of February 21, 2026 gave the Negen funds board observer and approval rights; it ends on listing (DRHP p.210). There is no employee stock option scheme (DRHP p.90).

Lock-in: promoters' shares equal to 20% of the post-offer capital for three years and the rest for one year; other pre-offer shares for six months (DRHP p.94, DRHP p.95).

12What changed just before the IPO

• Revenue and profit: revenue from operations went from ₹71.9 crore in FY24 to ₹155.5 crore in FY26 and profit after tax from a loss of ₹5.7 crore to a loss of ₹15.4 crore (DRHP p.65).
• Receivables: nil at each year end, FY24 to FY26 (DRHP p.64).
• Promoter pay: ₹1.0 crore in FY24 and ₹1.7 crore in FY26 (our arithmetic, DRHP p.68).
• Restaurants: from 11 at March 2024 to 21 at March 2026, nine of them opened in FY26 (DRHP p.297).
• Funding rounds: preference shares at ₹19.26 and ₹19.37 a share in July and December 2024, and at ₹31.63 a share in January and March 2026 (DRHP p.82, DRHP p.83, DRHP p.84, DRHP p.86).
• Debt repaid: borrowings fell from ₹12.3 crore at March 2024 to ₹0.09 crore at March 2025 (DRHP p.306).
• Share split: ₹10 to ₹2 a share, approved July 27, 2026 (DRHP p.80).
• Bonus issue: 20:1, 104,173,000 shares allotted on September 2, 2026 (DRHP p.80); an earlier 99:1 bonus was in November 2019 (DRHP p.80).
• Pre-IPO placement: none so far; up to ₹30.0 crore may be placed before the RHP (DRHP p.61).
• Last allotment before the IPO: the bonus shares at nil price in September 2026; the last allotment for cash was Series C1 at ₹31.63 a share on March 14, 2026 (DRHP p.80, DRHP p.86).
• Brand name: right of first refusal agreement with Ankit Virendra Gupta on October 15, 2026 (DRHP p.211).
• Board and officers: four independent directors appointed in July and September 2026; company secretary in May 2026 and CFO designated in August 2026 (DRHP p.212, DRHP p.227).
• Service charge: stopped from June 10, 2026 (DRHP p.299).
• Auditor: no change of statutory auditor in the three years before filing (DRHP p.73).
• Dividend: none in FY24 to FY26 or since (DRHP p.232).
• Became a public company: fresh certificate dated August 17, 2026 (DRHP p.207).

13Capacity and expansion

Source: DRHP p.188, DRHP p.176, DRHP p.192, DRHP p.106. The company says each cover takes about 90 minutes (DRHP p.176). The strategy section says it intends 27 additional restaurants in the next two fiscals after the current one (DRHP p.184, DRHP p.185). The time from lease signing to opening is typically four to five months, and a new restaurant needs about three to six months to reach the sales of an established one (DRHP p.193, DRHP p.296).

Average restaurant area is given three ways: 3,182.67 square feet for FY26 in the restaurant metrics, 2,801.23 square feet across the network in the strengths section, and 2,653.68 in the commissioned report (DRHP p.188, DRHP p.180, DRHP p.169). The document does not say which is the basis for the 3,000 square feet planned per new restaurant.

14Market size and industry structure

Hunger Pangs industry: market size and growth

As claimed: the chapter is taken from "Market Landscape and Growth Drivers in Indian Foodservice Sector" dated October 2026 by Frost & Sullivan (India) Private Limited, commissioned and paid for by the company for the offer (DRHP p.132). The commissioned report puts India's foodservice market at about ₹8,31,432 crore in FY2026, of which organised foodservice was about ₹4,74,796 crore, or 57.1% (DRHP p.150). Within organised foodservice, catering is about 34%, full-service dining about 32% and quick service restaurants about 19% (DRHP p.151).

The part that is addressable: the company runs premium casual dining restaurants. The report sizes full-service dining, casual and fine dining together, at about ₹1,51,693 crore in FY2026, with casual dining about ₹1,45,286 crore and more than 95% of it (DRHP p.155). It sizes the narrower opportunity for premium full-service restaurants offering Pan-Asian food with a vegetarian-only proposition at about ₹845 crore to ₹1,472 crore, about 0.6% to 0.9% of full-service dining (DRHP p.158).

What the company is today: FY26 revenue of ₹155.5 crore is about 0.1% of the report's full-service dining market and about 10.6% to 18.4% of its premium vegetarian Pan-Asian niche (our arithmetic, DRHP p.65, DRHP p.155, DRHP p.158). The report calls Burma Burma India's largest specialty Burmese casual dining chain (DRHP p.176).

Size over time: the report projects foodservice at about ₹12,88,733 crore by FY2030, about 11.6% a year, and organised foodservice at about ₹7,75,513 crore, raising its share to about 60.2% (DRHP p.150). It projects organised foodservice growing about 13% a year against about 9.5% for unorganised (DRHP p.151).

It projects full-service dining at about ₹2,17,642 crore by FY2030, about 9.4% a year, and casual dining at about ₹2,07,653 crore, about 9.3% a year (DRHP p.155, DRHP p.156). These projections are the report's own. Globally, it puts consumer foodservice at USD 3,457.65 billion in CY2025, projected at USD 4,303.79 billion by CY2030, and vegan-friendly restaurants at USD 26.09 billion in CY2025 (DRHP p.144, DRHP p.148).

Segments: the report divides full-service dining into mass, premium and luxury by price, and by cuisine; its Pan-Asian group covers Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Burmese, Malaysian, Singaporean, Indonesian, Thai and Asian fusion (DRHP p.156, DRHP p.158). It places Burma Burma in premium Pan-Asian casual dining and calls Burmese food a narrower specialist proposition within it (DRHP p.159). By city, it estimates Mumbai at about 19.8% of organised foodservice, Delhi NCR at 15.1% and Bengaluru at 9.5%, and the top ten cities at about 65% (DRHP p.151, DRHP p.152); those three cities brought about 81.4% of the company's FY26 revenue (our arithmetic, DRHP p.31).

What drives demand: the report names rising incomes, with rich households projected to grow from 8.87 million in CY2021 to 26.06 million in CY2031 (DRHP p.137); foreign travel by Indians, up from 21.60 million departures in CY2022 to 32.71 million in CY2025 (DRHP p.139); urbanisation and nuclear families (DRHP p.137); more women at work, with female labour force participation from 23.3% in FY18 to 33.7% in FY26 (DRHP p.154); and plant-based and flexitarian eating (DRHP p.148). It says casual dining customers visit about three times a month, 85% of visits on weekends (DRHP p.156).

Structure: the report names Mamagoto and Asian Kitchen as broad Pan-Asian brands and Yauatcha and Hakkasan as premium cuisine-specific ones (DRHP p.158). It benchmarks listed chains, among them Speciality Restaurants with ₹476.5 crore of FY26 revenue, and private chains such as Massive Restaurants, Azure Hospitality, Pebble Street and KA Hospitality (DRHP p.163). It ranks Burma Burma at the upper end of Zomato ratings among Asian restaurants, about 4.7 to 4.8 (DRHP p.159).

Inputs and trade: the company's cost of materials was 19.53% of FY26 revenue, against food costs of 28.91% to 33.60% for the listed chains the report benchmarks (DRHP p.298, DRHP p.169, DRHP p.170, DRHP p.171). Specialty Burmese ingredients have particular sourcing, storage and shelf-life needs, and imported items are monitored centrally (DRHP p.36, DRHP p.192). The document does not give the share of ingredients imported. All revenue is earned in India (DRHP p.291).

Rules: restaurants need licences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, shops and establishments registration, trade and health licences, fire no-objection certificates and, where applicable, pollution control consents (DRHP p.200, DRHP p.45). Some approvals have lapsed and renewals are pending, in some cases waiting on landlords' fire certificates (DRHP p.45). Changes in the GST rate on restaurant services or in input tax credit may affect pricing and margins, the company says (DRHP p.298).

What the chapter says can go wrong: inflation and rising input costs, price-sensitive diners, shortages of specialty or imported ingredients, and intense competition (DRHP p.149, DRHP p.150). The chapter does not size Burmese cuisine on its own, nor the vegetarian, alcohol-free segment by city.

15Competitive position

Hunger Pangs competitors

Source: DRHP p.117, DRHP p.118, DRHP p.169, DRHP p.170, DRHP p.171, converted from ₹ million. United Foodbrands' revenue is about 8.6 times the company's (our arithmetic, DRHP p.117). The commissioned report also benchmarks Speciality Restaurants, which runs Mainland China and other casual dining brands, at ₹476.5 crore of FY26 revenue and a 17.44% EBITDA margin (DRHP p.163, DRHP p.164).

What the company puts forward: India's largest specialty Burmese chain, a restaurant in all four zones of the country, company-run restaurants, Zomato ratings of 4.69 to 4.75 on average, and food costs near a fifth of revenue (DRHP p.179, DRHP p.115, DRHP p.298). It says there are few direct competitors in specialty Burmese food (DRHP p.298). Against that, as the document itself states: one brand, an all-vegetarian and alcohol-free menu that narrows the customer base, three cities bringing most revenue, leased sites only, and attrition near half the workforce each year (DRHP p.25, DRHP p.31, DRHP p.28). Advertising and sales promotion was ₹5.6 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.186).

16Peers the company named

Peers named in the offer document: United Foodbrands Limited, Devyani International Limited, Sapphire Foods Limited, Restaurants Brands Asia Limited and Westlife Food World Limited (DRHP p.119).

All five are many times the company's size, from ₹1,338.7 crore to ₹5,611.5 crore of FY26 revenue against ₹155.5 crore, and four of the five run quick service brands rather than casual dining (DRHP p.119, DRHP p.118).

Four had negative diluted EPS in FY26, so the document gives no P/E for them; Westlife Food World's P/E is 130.29 on its October 14, 2026 closing price, which is also the industry high, low and average the document prints (DRHP p.119, DRHP p.114). The company's FY26 EPS was a loss of ₹1.41 a share and its NAV ₹5.86 a share (DRHP p.119).

With no price band and a loss, no P/E for the company can be stated.

17Risks, in plain words

Hunger Pangs IPO risks

Business: one brand: all revenue comes from Burma Burma, a vegetarian, alcohol-free format (DRHP p.25) → a fall in interest, a food safety incident or bad reviews would hit the whole business (DRHP p.25) → there is no second brand yet (DRHP p.186).

Customers: three cities: Bengaluru, Delhi NCR and Mumbai were 81.4% of FY26 revenue (our arithmetic, DRHP p.31) → a local slowdown, rent rises or a strong rival in those cities would weigh on sales (DRHP p.31) → Bengaluru alone was 32.02% (DRHP p.31).

Financial: losses after lease costs: losses in each of FY24 to FY26 (DRHP p.34) → each new restaurant adds lease, depreciation and staff costs before it reaches mature sales (DRHP p.296) → the FY26 loss was ₹15.4 crore (DRHP p.65).

Business: expansion from the proceeds: ₹117.3 crore for 27 new restaurants, with only five sites under letters of intent and no orders placed (DRHP p.106, DRHP p.29) → costs or timing may change, and new restaurants may take time to break even or cut into nearby ones (DRHP p.29) → same-store sales growth was 2.27% in FY26 (DRHP p.188).

Business: rent: every site is leased (DRHP p.197) → rent escalations or failure to renew could close a restaurant before its fit-out cost is recovered (DRHP p.32) → rent was 21.83% of FY26 revenue (DRHP p.188).

Business: staff turnover: overall attrition was 48.35% in FY26 and 49.57% at restaurant level (DRHP p.28) → specialised cooks are needed to keep the food consistent (DRHP p.27) → employee costs were ₹50.7 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.65).

Promoters: the brand name: Ankit Virendra Gupta holds a right of first refusal over the Burma Burma marks at fair market value (DRHP p.211) → if the company proposes to transfer them or the Burmese restaurant business closes, the marks may pass to a promoter (DRHP p.211) → the earlier price for taking the name back was ₹0.02 crore (DRHP p.210).

Promoters: control and related parties: promoters and promoter group hold 70.50% before the offer (DRHP p.97) → relatives are paid as employees and consultants and a relative is a landlord (DRHP p.229) → related-party transactions were 8.63% of FY26 revenue (DRHP p.49).

Regulation: licences and filings: some approvals have lapsed with renewals pending, statutory dues were paid late in past years, and Registrar filings were delayed (DRHP p.45, DRHP p.46, DRHP p.49) → penalties or a restaurant closure could follow (DRHP p.46) → FY26 had ten late TDS payments (DRHP p.47).

Suppliers: specialty ingredients: Burmese ingredients have specific sourcing and storage needs (DRHP p.36) → shortages could force menu changes (DRHP p.36) → the ten largest suppliers were 49.40% of FY26 food and beverage materials (DRHP p.192).

Issue-specific: part goes to sellers: 27,929,760 shares are offered by nine holders (DRHP p.61) → that money does not reach the company (DRHP p.103) → the promoters' cost is negligible and the funds' between ₹12.82 and ₹13.18 a share (AP p.10).

18Litigation and regulatory matters

Cases against Hunger Pangs and its promoters

Summary: against the company, no criminal case, no regulatory action and no material civil case; one tax case of ₹0.12 crore (DRHP p.317, DRHP p.318, AP p.11). Against the promoters and directors, one indirect tax case of ₹0.12 crore (DRHP p.319, AP p.11). SEBI: no disciplinary action against the promoters in five years (DRHP p.319). Creditors: 424 creditors were owed ₹5.9 crore at June 30, 2026, 223 of them small enterprises owed ₹3.4 crore (DRHP p.319). Food safety: the company has received queries and general notices from routine FSSAI inspections, which it does not count or quantify (DRHP p.41).

19Related-party transactions

Source: DRHP p.68, DRHP p.69, DRHP p.70, converted from ₹ million. Shares were issued to Vasudha Chhajer for ₹1.4 crore in FY25 and to Neha Goenka for ₹0.50 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.69). Total related-party transactions were ₹2.0 crore in FY24, ₹3.8 crore in FY25 and ₹13.4 crore in FY26 (DRHP p.49).

What appeared or changed in the two years before filing: the promoters' personal guarantees and the loans to them in FY26; salary to Vasudha Chhajer from FY26; the right of first refusal agreement over the brand of October 15, 2026; and the extension of the delivery kitchen licence from Virendra Kalicharan Gupta to November 30, 2026 (DRHP p.69, DRHP p.211, DRHP p.229). The company says its related-party transactions are at arm's length (DRHP p.49).

20What the offer document does not say

The price band, the number of fresh-issue shares, the offer for sale amount, offer expenses and the after-offer shareholding are blank (DRHP p.61, DRHP p.109, DRHP p.100). Seat or table utilisation as a percentage is not given, only covers per restaurant (DRHP p.176). Profit or revenue by restaurant, by city or by age of restaurant is not given beyond city revenue (DRHP p.31).

The aggregator commission rate and the share of delivery sales it takes are not disclosed. The share of ingredients that is imported is not disclosed. Sites for 22 of the 27 planned restaurants are not identified (DRHP p.106). The cost and timing of the planned Japanese brand are not given (DRHP p.186). The number and outcome of FSSAI inspection notices are not given (DRHP p.41).

The return on capital employed is not in the company's KPIs. Whether a pre-IPO placement will be made, and at what price, is open (DRHP p.61).

Some inconsistencies are recorded as document matters, not business ones: the number of new-restaurant sites with identified locations is five on one page and four on another (DRHP p.106, DRHP p.108); the March 2026 transfer to Swati Raj Agrawal is 3,764 shares from each promoter in the share history but 3,762 in the acquisitions table (DRHP p.87, DRHP p.93); average restaurant area differs across three sections (DRHP p.188, DRHP p.180, DRHP p.169); and covers times spend per cover exceeds reported dine-in sales (DRHP p.188, DRHP p.302).

21Five questions for management

1. What is the rent, including the revenue-share component, as a share of sales for restaurants opened in FY26 against those open before FY24?
2. How much of the 21.35% same-store sales growth in the June 2026 quarter came from price increases, and what effect has ending the service charge from June 10, 2026 had on revenue per cover?
3. What sales per restaurant does a new restaurant need to cover its lease, depreciation and staff costs, and how many of the nine FY26 openings had reached that level by June 2026?
4. What is the commission paid to Swiggy and Zomato as a share of delivery sales, and how has it moved over FY24 to FY26?
5. On what basis would the fair market value be set if Ankit Virendra Gupta exercised the right of first refusal over the Burma Burma marks, and why was the earlier re-assignment arrangement replaced?

2Sources and cited facts

This study was read from 2 documents the company filed. The 198 figures it cites are listed under the document each came from, with the page and the sentence as printed.