I'm not sure if I can answer that as I don't know their rating system. However, I'm confident of the fact that if they have inspectors who have expertise in Indian food then there will be dozens of restaurants from different Indian cities alone. Every part of India has unique food offerings and diversity. Street food alone has so much to offer in India. Now ever popular dishes (across the globe) like Butter Chicken were invented in few restaurants in New Delhi around 70-80 years ago.
Both of these look pretty nice, but after some tripadvisor-sleuthing I'm not really convinced that they're quite "michelin-quality". One strong clue would be the apparent lack of a sommelier.
Which doesn't necessarily mean the food isn't "Michelin-quality," it just means that the whole experience isn't "Michelin-quality."
A Michelin star doesn't just come from the literal taste of the food (or the presentation), it comes from every aspect of the restaurant and staff - down to the very cleanliness of the curtains.
Well, Moghul is maybe a little boisterous for Michelin style. Because the bar and restaurant are contiguous. But I don't recall anything negative about Mehndi.
And then there's Nirvana in Manhattan, at penthouse level on on Central Park South. Beautiful cityscape at night. But it's really Bangladeshi, and they don't do Vindaloo.
I've seen sake sommeliers, most of the upscale Indian places in London have not just a wine sommelier, but they also offer excellent cocktails.
Unfortunately I'm not super familiar with nicer Chinese food, but I'd presume that it's not incompatible with drinks either.
I'm not saying that you need to have a sommelier, I'm just saying that the lack of a sommelier is usually a pretty good sign that a restaurant isn't even trying for a star (extremely few restaurants are!).
I don't think Michelin would tend to rate any "traditional" restaurants very highly, to get stars you need to offer the specific Michelin experience.
[1] Butter Chicken - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butter_chicken