# Hazel Mercantile Limited & others, Vineet Shrivastava, Yadubir Singh Sajwan, Suraksha Realty Limited & another vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India & ors., Union of India

> HC judgment dated 2026-08-19. Citation: TCN-2026-HC-00045. Four writ petitions were filed challenging Regulation 31A of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 19 Aug 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-HC-00045
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/bombay-high-court-panaji/hazel-mercantile-limited-others-vineet-shrivastava-yadubir-singh-sajwan-suraksha-gk7xx

## Summary

### Background

Four writ petitions were filed challenging Regulation 31A of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, which introduced a 'regulatory fee' of 0.25% of the realisable value to creditors under an approved resolution plan (if more than liquidation value), effective 01.10.2022. The petitioners, including successful resolution applicants and a home buyer, contended that the regulation was ultra vires the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), amounted to a tax rather than a fee, was retrospective in operation, and was arbitrary, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

## Facts

Four writ petitions (WP No. 703/2023, 243/2024, 244/2024, 1560/2025) were heard together by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

Writ Petition No. 243/2024 was originally filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, and Writ Petition No. 244/2024 was originally filed before the Delhi High Court.

On 21.11.2023, the Supreme Court allowed Transfer Petition Nos. 2124 – 2126 of 2023, transferring WP 243/2024 and 244/2024 to the Bombay High Court.

The petitioners in WP No. 703/2023 and 1560/2025 are successful resolution applicants.

Regulation 31A of the IBBI Regulations, introducing a regulatory fee, was introduced with effect from 01.10.2022.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether Regulation 31A of the IBBI Regulations, introducing a regulatory fee, is beyond the powers …

**Ratio:** The Board has the power to levy regulatory fees under Sections 5(13)(e), 196(1)(c), and

…

**Reasoning:** Section 196(1)(c) empowers the Board to levy fees 'for carrying out the purposes of the

…

**Interpretation:** Sections 5(13)(e), 196(1)(c), and 240(2)(d) of the IBC, read conjointly with

…

**Application:** The introduction of Regulation 31A is well within the quasi-legislative powers

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** MANISH P…; SHREERAM V.…
- **Appellants:** Hazel Mercantile…; Vineet Shri…; +2 more
- **Respondents:** Reliance Naval…; Som Resorts…; +3 more
- **Other parties:** CoC for Reliance…; CoC for Som…; +4 more
- **Advocates:** Vikram Na…; Sumeet Na…; +16 more

## Timeline

- **2020-01-15 — CIRP Commencement…**: NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench, passed an order admitting Company Petition No.418 of 2018 filed by…
- **2020-05-05 — Resolution Professional Appointment (Reliance…**: NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench, passed an order appointing respondent No.3 as resolution…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 196 — Powers and functions of Board](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-196)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/bombay-high-court-panaji/hazel-mercantile-limited-others-vineet-shrivastava-yadubir-singh-sajwan-suraksha-gk7xx