Why 60% of Indian Restaurants Fail in Their First Year

India's restaurant industry presents a profound paradox: it is simultaneously one of the nation's fastest-growing economic sectors and one of its most lethal entrepreneurial environments. Valued at ₹5.69 lakh crore in FY2024 and projected to grow at a CAGR of 8.1% to ₹7.76 lakh crore by FY2028 (NRAI, 2024), the sector attracts tens of thousands of new entrants each year, driven by visible success stories and the enduring romance of food entrepreneurship. Yet the empirical evidence is unambiguous: approximately 60–73% of new Indian restaurants close within their first year of operation, a failure rate that is two to four times higher than equivalent rates in the United States. This paper examines the structural, financial, operational, and competitive causes of restaurant failure in India through a systematic review of industry data, operator surveys, and academic research. We identify seven distinct failure vectors — unit economics compression, the rent trap, aggregator dependency, working capital insufficiency, the management capability gap, location misjudgement, and staff attrition — and their interactions. We then examine the characteristics of the surviving 27–40%, and argue that the primary differentiator between those who survive and those who fail is not passion, food quality, or footfall, but financial visibility and operational discipline — precisely the domains where technology adoption creates the most decisive competitive advantage.

1. Introduction: The Allure and the Attrition

Every year, thousands of Indian entrepreneurs open a restaurant. Many have spent years dreaming of it — a corner table, a menu they built from memory, the smell of a kitchen they finally own. Most of them will close within twelve months.

This is not a failure of ambition. India's restaurant sector is structurally among the most difficult business environments in the world to survive in. The sector combines perishable inventory, paper-thin margins, labour-intensive operations, punishing real estate costs, and a consumer base that has never been more choice-saturated — all in a market where delivery aggregators now command commissions that would leave most FMCG companies in shock.

"Restaurants are deemed some of the most difficult businesses to start, along with logistics and travel agencies. Experts recommend that restaurateurs should have enough money to cover one year's expenses before the business turns profitable." — Indifi Capital, 2024

The failure rate data is stark. Approximately 60% of Indian restaurants close within their first year of operation^[1]. Some industry analysts put the number higher — at 73%^[2] — reflecting the difficulty of obtaining comprehensive data in a sector where the majority of closures are unannounced and unmeasured. What is consistent across all sources is the directionality: Indian restaurants fail at rates two to four times higher than comparable establishments in the United States, where the first-year failure rate is estimated at 17–30%^[3].

This paper does not aim to discourage aspiration. India's food services industry is growing, is creating value, and does produce profitable, durable businesses. The goal of this analysis is to name the specific mechanisms by which restaurants fail — not to catalogue misfortune, but to make the preventable causes visible. Because most of the reasons Indian restaurants fail are, in fact, preventable.

2. Establishing the Failure Rate: What the Evidence Shows

2.1 The Data Landscape

Measuring restaurant failure rates in India is methodologically challenging. Unlike listed companies, restaurant closures are not formally reported; many operators quietly stop operations, sublease premises, or pivot to ghost kitchen models without generating any public record of failure. This means that the frequently cited failure rates — 60%, 63%, 73% — are industry estimates derived from aggregated survey data, industry association reporting, and point-in-time studies rather than comprehensive longitudinal tracking.

Despite this limitation, the convergence of multiple independent estimates around the 60–73% range establishes a reliable order-of-magnitude picture. The NRAI India Food Services Report 2024^[4], which is the most comprehensive authoritative industry survey in India, provides the structural backdrop: a ₹5.69 lakh crore industry employing 85.5 lakh people directly, with the organised segment growing at 13.2% CAGR — but also an industry characterised by extraordinarily high churn at the entry level.

2.2 A Global Comparison

Table 1. Comparative restaurant first-year failure rates. Sources: NRA (USA), industry estimates, research literature. Note: All figures are estimates; methodologies vary across markets.

The gap between India and global comparators is not primarily explained by quality of food or entrepreneurial ability. It is explained by the cost structure of running a restaurant in India's urban centres, relative to the price-sensitivity of Indian consumers and the competitive dynamics created by food delivery aggregators — factors that are structural, not personal.

3. The Seven Failure Vectors: A Systematic Analysis

Based on a review of industry research, operator surveys, and case studies, we identify seven distinct mechanisms by which Indian restaurants fail. These vectors are not mutually exclusive — in practice, several operate simultaneously, creating compound failure dynamics that accelerate closure. We present them in order of frequency and impact.

3.1 The Unit Economics Trap: When the Numbers Never Worked

The most fundamental and most common failure cause in Indian restaurants is also the least visible to the entrepreneur at the moment of opening: the unit economics of the business were never viable. The restaurant opened with a cost structure that made profitability impossible at any realistic level of revenue.

The benchmark cost structure of an Indian restaurant, according to industry data and operator surveys[5][6], is as follows:

Table 2. Cost structure benchmarks for Indian restaurants. Sources: DineOpen (2026), Restaurant India, RetailPOS India, NRAI IFSR 2024. Ranges reflect variation by format, city, and operator sophistication.

The critical insight from this data is the margin of error: with total operating costs routinely running at 85–95% of revenue in a well-managed restaurant, a single unexpected cost increase — a supplier price rise, an equipment failure, a two-week slowdown in footfall — can push the business from marginally profitable to actively loss-making within a matter of weeks. For restaurants that entered with higher-than-benchmark costs (a common scenario among first-time operators), this margin of error is zero from day one.

3.2 The Rent Trap: Death by Real Estate

If there is a single number that most reliably predicts restaurant failure in India, it is the rent-to-revenue ratio. Industry data is unambiguous: rent above 15% of gross revenue is the single most powerful predictor of restaurant failure^[5]. Yet in India's Tier 1 city restaurant markets, prime location rents routinely consume 15–25% of revenue — with certain corridors (Indiranagar, Bangalore; Banjara Hills, Hyderabad; Worli, Mumbai) commanding rents that consume even more.

The structural problem is exacerbated by a peculiarity of Indian restaurant real estate: restaurant leases are typically long-term (3–9 years), front-loaded with security deposits of 3–12 months, and contain escalation clauses of 5–15% annually. A restaurant that signs a lease with a rent-to-revenue ratio of 14% at launch may find itself at 18–20% within three years simply because of contracted rent escalation, without any change in food quality or customer traffic.

Mumbai presents the starkest illustration of this dynamic. With per-square-foot rents in prime areas approaching half of equivalent New York City rates — but purchasing power parity that is approximately one-fifth of New York's^[2] — Mumbai restaurants face a structural rent burden that their global counterparts cannot comprehend. A 1,000 sq ft restaurant in Bandra or Juhu paying ₹2.5–4 lakh per month in rent needs to generate ₹20–40 lakh in monthly revenue simply to keep rent within the healthy 10–15% range. Most independent restaurants in India never reach that revenue level.

3.3 The Aggregator Commission Trap: Growth That Destroys Margins

One of the most significant structural developments in India's restaurant industry over the past decade has been the rise of food delivery aggregators — Zomato and Swiggy — which now connect over 276,000 restaurants to delivery customers. For many new restaurants, particularly cloud kitchens, aggregator platforms represent the primary channel for customer acquisition and order volume.

The economics of aggregator dependency are, however, fundamentally incompatible with restaurant survival at typical Indian food price points. Zomato and Swiggy charge commissions of 15–30% per order^[7], with additional charges for priority listing, advertising, packaging subsidies, and promotional participation. When all platform-related costs are aggregated, restaurants often lose 30–40% of the order value to the aggregator before a single rupee is spent on food, labour, or rent.

Table 3. Illustrative P&L comparison: aggregator order vs. direct/dine-in order at identical food cost and overhead assumptions. Note: actual commission rates vary; this table uses 22% as a representative blended rate for a mid-market restaurant. Sources: Petpooja Blog (2024), Spice Advisors (2025).

The table above illustrates what many restaurant operators discover only after months of operation: an order through Zomato or Swiggy, at standard commission rates and with typical discounting, generates a negative net margin at the restaurant level. The restaurant is not just working hard for zero profit — it is actively subsidising the aggregator's customer acquisition costs.

This does not mean delivery channels are inherently unviable. Cloud kitchens with low rent overhead, high throughput, and menu pricing calibrated to aggregator economics can achieve positive unit economics on delivery. But for the vast majority of Indian restaurants that add delivery as an additional channel without adjusting their pricing or overhead structure, aggregator dependency is a path to accelerated failure — the restaurant grows its order volume and its losses simultaneously.

3.4 The Working Capital Crisis: Running Out of Cash Before Running Out of Hope

A restaurant can have a viable business model, a good location, and genuine customer demand — and still fail. The mechanism is working capital depletion: the business runs out of cash before it reaches operational maturity.

Restaurants are cash-intensive, perishable-inventory businesses with daily operational costs and irregular revenue streams. The structural mismatch between daily cash outflows (procurement, staff wages, utilities) and monthly fixed costs (rent, EMIs, licenses) creates a permanent working capital pressure that most first-time operators underestimate.

Industry experts consistently advise that restaurant operators should have sufficient capital to cover twelve months of expenses before the business turns profitable^[8]. In practice, the vast majority of Indian restaurant entrepreneurs open with three to six months of reserves — sufficient for an optimistic scenario, but catastrophically insufficient for the reality of a restaurant that takes eight to fourteen months to build a sustainable customer base.

The working capital trap is tightened by several India-specific factors:

• Seasonal demand volatility: Indian consumer spending on dining out is heavily concentrated around festivals (Diwali, Eid, Christmas), wedding season, and weekends. A new restaurant opening in the wrong season can face two to three months of subdued demand before its core customer cycle begins — months during which fixed costs accumulate relentlessly.
• Perishable inventory waste: Cash tied up in perishable stock that is not sold is cash permanently destroyed. For a restaurant without real-time inventory management, the first few months of operation — when demand patterns are unpredictable — can generate waste rates of 20–30%, directly burning working capital.
• GST and regulatory compliance costs: Restaurant operators in India navigate a complex multi-layered regulatory environment: FSSAI licensing, GST registration and monthly filing, municipal permits, fire safety clearance, and in many states, separate liquor licensing. Compliance costs and time delays consume capital that should be funding operations.
• Delayed security deposit recovery: The large security deposits required for commercial leases in India (3–12 months' rent) tie up significant capital that is not recovered until lease termination — often years later, and sometimes disputed.

3.5 The Management Capability Gap: Passion Is Not Operational Discipline

The restaurant industry has the highest proportion of passion-driven entrepreneurs of any sector: people who open restaurants because they love food, love hospitality, and believe that a great product will find its audience. This passion is genuine and often produces extraordinary food. It does not, however, substitute for management capability — and the gap between the two is where many Indian restaurants founder.

Research on restaurant failure consistently identifies management inexperience as a primary causal factor^[9]. The specific competencies that distinguish successful operators from failing ones are not culinary — they are financial and operational: the ability to read a P&L statement, to manage a weekly cash flow projection, to track food cost percentage in real time, to build a staffing schedule that matches labour to revenue, and to make data-informed decisions about menu pricing and portion sizes.

"The successful 27% of restaurant owners focus on training their staff well. They keep their menus simple, use modern technology, and take customer feedback seriously. These are operational disciplines, not creative ones." — Toyaja Industry Analysis, 2025

The management capability gap manifests in several specific operational failures:

• Menu complexity overreach: First-time operators frequently launch with large, ambitious menus — 80–120 SKUs across multiple cuisines — believing that variety signals quality. In practice, large menus increase procurement complexity, inventory waste, preparation time, and quality inconsistency. Successful operators curate shorter menus with cross-utilised ingredients.
• Pricing intuition over analytics: Menu prices are commonly set by competitive benchmarking ('what does the place down the road charge?') rather than by cost-plus analysis. A restaurant that prices its dishes by market feel without calculating food cost percentage, contribution margin, and break-even covers per day is operating financially blind.
• Absence of financial monitoring: Many restaurant operators in India have no weekly or monthly P&L visibility. They know whether the till has cash; they do not know whether the business is profitable. The realisation that it is not often arrives months after the point at which corrective action was possible.
• Reactive staff management: Staff attrition is handled reactively — replacing departures individually rather than building a staffing structure with adequate cross-training and succession. This creates service inconsistency, higher ongoing recruitment costs, and a dependency on individual employees whose departure can destabilise operations.

3.6 The Staff Attrition Crisis: The Hidden Cost That Compounds Everything

India's restaurant industry has one of the highest employee turnover rates of any sector. Kitchen and service staff attrition reached a record 60% in 2023, up from a historical average of 50–55%^[10]. Longitudinal industry data suggests that since 2013, annual turnover has averaged nearly 80% across the sector

The economic consequences of this attrition are severe and compound over time. Each departure triggers recruitment costs (advertising, agency fees, or owner time spent interviewing), onboarding costs (the two to four weeks of reduced productivity during training), and service quality degradation (the period during which an undertrained replacement damages customer experience).

Industry analysis suggests that replacing a single restaurant employee costs between ₹15,000 and ₹50,000 in direct and indirect costs, depending on the role. For a 10-person restaurant with 60% annual attrition, this translates to 6 replacement cycles per year at an average of ₹25,000 each — ₹1.5 lakh annually in staff churn costs alone, before any account is taken of revenue lost to service quality degradation during transition periods.

High attrition is also self-reinforcing: understaffing creates overwork for remaining staff, which accelerates further departures. New restaurants in their first year — with uncertain revenue, erratic hours, and limited benefits — are disproportionately exposed to this cycle.

3.7 Location Misjudgement: The Error That Cannot Be Corrected

Location selection is arguably the single most consequential decision a restaurant owner makes — and, unlike most management decisions, it is extremely difficult to reverse. A restaurant that has signed a 3-year lease in a poor location is locked into that decision regardless of how many operational improvements are made.

Poor location in the Indian context takes several forms. High street locations with premium rents but foot traffic that is insufficient to justify the cost. Catchment areas with the wrong demographic — a fine-dining concept in a predominantly student neighbourhood, or a premium café in an area dominated by office workers who want quick lunch options. Locations with poor visibility, awkward vehicle access, or insufficient parking — particularly damaging in a market where the car-going dining occasion is a primary revenue driver for mid-to-upscale restaurants.

Market saturation compounds the location problem. With over 500,000 restaurants operating in India^[11] — and with specific commercial corridors in metros hosting dozens of restaurants within a single city block — differentiation has become essential for survival. A restaurant that is the fourth biryani outlet on a street faces not just competition but consumer choice fatigue, in a market where platform algorithms further dilute visibility by promoting discounted and high-rated established players over new entrants.

4. What the Surviving 27–40% Do Differently

Understanding why restaurants fail is necessary but insufficient. The more useful question is: what distinguishes the businesses that survive and prosper? Industry research provides a consistent set of answers — and they cluster around a small number of operational disciplines that are more accessible than many failing operators realise.

4.1 Financial Visibility from Day One

Surviving restaurants consistently monitor their key financial metrics in real time or on a daily basis: food cost percentage, labour cost percentage, revenue per cover, and cash position. They do not wait for a monthly accountant's summary to know whether the business is profitable. This financial visibility allows them to identify deteriorating trends — a food cost creeping from 30% to 36% over three weeks — in time to investigate and correct rather than in time only to record the damage.

4.2 Menu Discipline: Fewer SKUs, Higher Quality, Higher Margin

The menus of successful Indian restaurants tend to be shorter and more deliberately engineered than those of failing competitors. A menu of 25–40 items with high ingredient cross-utilisation produces lower waste, more consistent quality, faster service, and more predictable procurement than a 100-item menu. Successful operators regularly review their menu using sales data — identifying slow-moving items that generate waste without revenue, and removing them.

4.3 Direct Customer Channel Investment

Restaurants that survive build their own customer base — through loyalty programmes, WhatsApp ordering groups, a Google Business Profile with consistent reviews, and periodic direct marketing — rather than relying entirely on aggregator platforms for customer acquisition. This is not about rejecting aggregators; it is about reducing dependence on them. Every direct order at full margin earned is an order that does not require surrendering 22–30% to a platform.

4.4 Lean Menu, Lean Inventory

Survivor operators implement FIFO (first-in, first-out) stock rotation as a non-negotiable kitchen discipline, conduct inventory counts at least weekly (daily in high-volume kitchens), and purchase perishables with a maximum 2–3 day buffer rather than large weekly orders. These practices reduce waste, reduce the working capital tied up in inventory at any given time, and reduce the risk of quality failure from using near-expired ingredients.

4.5 Location Economics Modelled Before Signing

Surviving operators consistently report having modelled the break-even economics of their chosen location before signing a lease. The specific calculation: (Monthly rent ÷ Target rent-to-revenue ratio) = Minimum required monthly revenue. If achieving that revenue requires an average of more than 80% table occupancy at lunch and dinner, seven days a week — the location economics are probably not viable.

4.6 Technology as a Force Multiplier

The adoption of restaurant management technology — even at the level of a basic cloud POS integrated with inventory tracking — correlates strongly with restaurant survival. Technology adoption enables the financial visibility, inventory discipline, and staff accountability that manual operations struggle to maintain consistently. It reduces the management capability gap: a first-time operator using a system that flags food cost percentage daily is less exposed to the silent margin erosion that kills restaurants invisibly.

Table 4. Behavioural differentiation between failing and surviving Indian restaurant operators. Synthesised from Toyaja (2025), Restaurant India, DineOpen (2026), and operator field research.

5. Technology and the Visibility Imperative

The theme that connects virtually every failure vector identified in this paper is visibility — or rather, the absence of it. Restaurant operators who fail typically do so because they could not see the problem in time to act: the food cost creeping upward, the inventory spoiling untracked, the cash position deteriorating week by week, the aggregator channel consuming margins order by order.

Modern restaurant management technology directly addresses this visibility deficit. At the minimum viable level, a cloud-based POS integrated with inventory management provides daily food cost tracking, stock level monitoring, and sales analytics that were previously available only to large chains with dedicated finance teams. At a more advanced level, AI-powered demand forecasting, dish-level margin analytics, and automated procurement alerts can prevent the specific errors — over-ordering, mispriced dishes, undetected waste — that compound into failure over time.

The evidence from international markets supports this thesis. A study in the journal Processes (MDPI, 2025) found that integrated inventory management and demand forecasting tools produced the highest combined score for cost reduction and operational feasibility across technology options evaluated for restaurant management^[12]. Similarly, a 2024 review of AI-driven restaurant management solutions in the journal Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence documented 20–50% waste reductions at hotel and restaurant deployments that adopted AI-integrated kitchen management systems

The barrier to adoption in India has historically been cost and complexity. Both barriers are falling rapidly. SaaS-based restaurant management platforms now offer full-featured inventory, POS, and analytics integration at monthly costs of ₹2,000–₹8,000 — less than the value of the food waste most restaurants generate in a single week. The technology is no longer the constraint. The constraint is awareness and the willingness to use data to run a restaurant rather than intuition alone.

6. Policy and Structural Context

6.1 The Regulatory Burden

A contributing factor to first-year restaurant failure that is less frequently discussed but operationally significant is the regulatory compliance burden facing Indian food businesses. New restaurant operators must navigate FSSAI licensing (with tiered requirements based on turnover and facility type), GST registration and monthly filing, municipal health and fire safety certifications, local planning permissions, noise regulations, and in states that permit alcohol service, a separate and complex liquor licensing process.

This compliance infrastructure is necessary and broadly legitimate. Its aggregate effect on a new restaurant, however, is to consume significant management time and capital during the critical first months when the operator's energy should be focused on building the customer base and stabilising operations. Delays in obtaining permits can postpone opening; compliance errors can generate penalties that strain early cash flow.

6.2 The Role of Trade Associations

The National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI), representing the organised sector, has consistently advocated for rationalisation of the regulatory burden on small and medium food businesses, including simplified licensing procedures and clearer guidelines for food safety compliance. The NRAI India Food Services Report 2024 provides detailed analysis of the sector's challenges and opportunities and represents the most authoritative public data on Indian restaurant industry dynamics^[4].

6.3 ONDC and the Commission Disruption Opportunity

The Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC) — India's government-backed open e-commerce protocol — represents a potentially significant structural shift in the aggregator commission dynamics that are currently one of the primary drivers of restaurant failure. By enabling restaurants to receive orders through an open digital infrastructure rather than through proprietary platforms, ONDC theoretically allows commission rates to be competed down significantly.

As of 2025, ONDC's restaurant and food delivery adoption remains limited relative to Zomato and Swiggy's combined market presence. But its trajectory — backed by government policy, growing merchant adoption, and consumer awareness — suggests it may alter the commission economics that currently make aggregator-dependent restaurant operations financially precarious for all but the highest-volume operators.

7. Conclusion: Failure Is Structural, Survival Is a System

The 60% first-year failure rate among Indian restaurants is not a statistic about passion, creativity, or the quality of Indian food. It is a statistic about cost structures, financial visibility, working capital, and the specific structural dynamics of one of the world's most competitive restaurant markets.

The evidence reviewed in this paper identifies seven distinct failure vectors: unit economics compression, the rent trap, aggregator commission dependency, working capital depletion, the management capability gap, staff attrition, and location misjudgement. These are not bad luck — they are predictable, documentable, and in most cases preventable.

The characteristics of the 27–40% who survive are equally clear. They are not better chefs. They are better operators: financially disciplined, inventory-conscious, customer-channel diversified, and willing to use data to make decisions that passion alone cannot guide. They also tend to be early adopters of management technology — not because technology solves everything, but because it makes the invisible visible, and visibility is the prerequisite for control.

India's food services industry is growing. The opportunity is real. But entering it without understanding these dynamics is not entrepreneurial optimism — it is structural risk acceptance, and the data is clear about how that risk resolves.

"The restaurant that knows its food cost percentage on a Tuesday afternoon, sees its inventory position in real time, and can tell you which dish made money and which lost it last week — that restaurant is not just better managed. It is exponentially more likely to be open in twelve months." — F&Bos, 2026

For India's restaurant owners, the path from the 60% to the 40% is not a mystery. It runs directly through financial visibility, operational discipline, and the courage to run a food business with the same rigour you would apply to any other business — because, despite what its romance suggests, that is exactly what it is.

Sources

1. Restaurant India / Industry Consensus. (2024). Indian Restaurant Failure Rate: First-Year and Five-Year Estimates. Restaurant India; Indifi Capital. https://www.restaurantindia.in/article/why- does-restaurant-fail.9804
2. Toyaja. (2025). Why 73% of Indian Restaurants Fail: How to Win in 2025. Toyaja Industry Intelligence. https://toyaja.com/why-73-of-restaurants-fail-and-how-to-win/
3. EatApp / BPlanWriter. (2025). Restaurant Failure Rate: Data-Backed Insights. EatApp Blog; BPlanWriter. https://restaurant.eatapp.co/blog/restaurant-failure-rate
4. National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI). (2024). India Food Services Report 2024 (NRAI IFSR 2024). NRAI, New Delhi. https://nrai.org/aboutNewsAndUpdate.aspx? ID=6EQtfBjriLQ%3D&Type=oS9yZygW1hU%3D
5. DineOpen. (2026). Restaurant Profit Margins in India: Complete Benchmark Guide (2026). DineOpen Blog. https://www.dineopen.com/blog/restaurant-profit-margins-india-guide.html
6. RetailPOS India. (2024). Why Your Restaurant Makes Less Profit Every Month Even When Sales Are Growing. RetailPOS India. https://retailpos.co.in/why-restaurant-profit-declining-india- sales-growing/
7. Spice Advisors / Petpooja Blog. (2025). Swiggy vs Zomato Commission Structure: What Every Restaurant Must Know. Spice Advisors; Petpooja Blog. https://www.spiceadvisors.in/post/swiggy- vs-zomato-commission-structure-what-every-restaurant-must-know-in-2025
8. Indifi Capital. (2024). 5 Common Challenges Faced by Indian Restaurateurs in 2024. Indifi Blog. https://www.indifi.com/blog/5-challenges-faced-by-indian-restaurateurs/
9. Parsa, H.G. et al.. (2005). Why Restaurants Fail. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237835565_Why_Restaurants_Fail
10. Restaurant India / EZee Optimus. (2024). Restaurant Staff Attrition India 2023–2024: Record High at 60%. Restaurant India; EZee Optimus Blog. https://www.restaurantindia.in/article/why- restaurant-industry-is-bleeding-with-entry-level-workforce.11216
11. Restaurant Times. (2025). Challenges of Running a Restaurant in India: Common Problems and Solutions. Restaurant Times. https://www.restauranttimes.com/blogs/operations/challenges-of- running-a-restaurant-in-india/
12. MDPI Processes. (2025). Food Waste Reduction AI Technologies in Restaurant Management: An MS-TORO Approach. MDPI Processes, Vol. 13(8), 2419. https://www.mdpi.com/2227- 9717/13/8/2419
13. Mehta, Shashank. (2024). Why Restaurants Fail. Mid-Life Entrepreneur, Substack. https://midlifeentrepreneur.substack.com/p/why-restaurants-fail
14. Research and Markets. (2024). India Food Services Market: Competition, Forecast and Opportunities 2020–2030F. Research and Markets. https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5654528/india-food-services-market-by-region

Related guides