Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Tejas Karia, Delhi High Court
Any Party With Sufficient Interest Can Be Impleaded In CCI Proceedings To Further Public Interest: Delhi High Court Dismisses Ultratech Cement's Intra-Court Appeal
|The Bench held that Competition Commission's order permitting Builders' Association of India to present its opinion was reasoned and did not violate natural justice, and noted that appeal largely rendered academic by Supreme Court's dismissal of a parallel challenge.
The Delhi High Court has held that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is empowered under Regulation 25(1) of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 to permit a person or enterprise with substantial interest in the outcome of proceedings to participate and present its opinion, where such participation would serve the public interest underlying the Commission's inquiry.
The Division Bench held that the Commission's order allowing the Builders' Association of India to participate in a cartelisation probe against grey cement manufacturers was passed strictly within this regulatory framework, finding that the Commission had recorded its satisfaction regarding the Association's substantial interest and that the order was neither unreasoned nor passed in violation of natural justice.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, observed, “…having regard to the object of the Act, 2002 the proceedings drawn by the Commission under Section 19 on receipt of complaints or otherwise, are, primarily, to achieve the public interest and, therefore, if in a given case certain investigation/inquiry is conducted by the Commission against certain entities in respect of allegations of their indulgence in anti-competition practices, any party or person or entity or an enterprise having sufficient interest in the matter can be impleaded in the proceedings of the Commission, which in our opinion will be only to farther the public interest. Such impleadment would be in aid of the Commission to arrive at a correct and just conclusions of the proceedings drawn by its. In this view, the appellant cannot be said to be dominus litis where it is the appellant alone which can choose the defendants”.
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria appeared for the respondent.
Between December 2018 and May 2019, the Competition Commission of India received multiple complaints, including from the Builders' Association of India, alleging cartelisation among grey cement manufacturers resulting in an abnormal increase in cement prices. The Commission directed an investigation under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, and the Director General submitted an investigation report on July 1, 2022. The Builders' Association, whose first application for impleadment had been rejected by the Commission in 2021 while the investigation was pending, moved a fresh application after the investigation concluded, seeking to present its opinion on the report.
The Commission allowed this application on July 5, 2023, invoking Regulation 25(1) of the 2009 Regulations, finding that the Association had substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings, and permitting it to inspect non-confidential records.
UltraTech Cement Ltd. challenged the Commission's impleadment order before a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the writ petition by judgment dated December 18, 2023, prompting the present intra-court appeal. Parallelly, other cement manufacturers had challenged the same impleadment order before the Madras High Court, whose dismissal of their writ appeals was upheld by the Supreme Court on February 26, 2024, with the Supreme Court recording a statement on behalf of the Association that it would not seek inspection of documents marked confidential, while leaving the underlying question of law open.
The Court held that Regulation 25(1) permits the Commission, upon a written application, to allow a person or enterprise to present its opinion and participate in proceedings where it is satisfied that such person or enterprise has substantial interest in the outcome and that such participation is necessary in the public interest. The Court found that the Commission's order dated July 5, 2023 had recorded this satisfaction in express terms, noting the Association's position as the largest consumer of grey cement and an all-India association of builders directly affected by anti-competitive practices, and that this constituted sufficient reasoning.
“A perusal of the aforequoted provisions of Regulation 25(1) would reveal that if the Commission, on an application to be made to it in writing is satisfied that a person or enterprise has substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings and that it is necessary in public interest to allow such person or enterprise to present his or its opinion on the matter, it may permit the said person or enterprise to present such opinion and to take part in further proceedings of the matter. Thus, what is permissible for the Commission while it exercises its power under Regulation 25(1) is that if any application is made in writing by a person or any enterprise seeking its participation in the proceedings, the Commission has to record its satisfaction that the person or the enterprise, as the case may be, has substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings…”, it noted.
On the question of natural justice, the Court found that the appellant, as a party to the underlying proceedings, had received a prior order directing that a copy be forwarded to it, informing it of the Commission's decision to share the non-confidential investigation report with the Association, and could not therefore claim to have been kept unaware of the developments.
Cause Title: UltraTech Cement Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:7617-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Senior Advocate, Nisha Kaur Oberoi, Shambhavi Sinha, Sarthak Pande, Shivangi Chawla, Afreen Abbassi, Mehar Singh Dang, Sudhanshu Prakash Singh and Uday Bhatia, Advocates.
Respondent: Aakanksha Kaul, Percival Billimoria, Senior Advocate, Anu Monga, Rahul Goel, Aditi Sharma, Palak Nigam, Rachita Sood and Anandi Katiyar, Advocates.