The Delhi High Court has dismissed Ultratech Cement Ltd.’s appeal challenging the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) decision to allow the Builders’ Association of India (BAI) to participate in proceedings concerning alleged anti-competitive practices in the grey cement industry.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that the CCI was justified in allowing BAI to present its views, considering its substantial interest as an association representing builders and a major consumer of cement.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from complaints received by the CCI between December 2018 and May 2019 concerning the conduct of grey cement manufacturers and its alleged impact on competition. One of the complaints came from BAI, which had alleged cartelisation resulting in an abnormal increase in cement prices.
The CCI initiated a suo motu investigation in July 2019 and directed its Director General (DG) to investigate. The DG submitted his investigation report on July 1, 2022.
BAI had initially sought impleadment during the investigation, but its request was rejected in December 2021. Subsequently, the Delhi High Court permitted BAI to approach the CCI again under Regulation 25 of the CCI (General) Regulations, 2009.
The CCI eventually allowed BAI’s application on July 5, 2023, permitting it to inspect non-confidential records and submit its opinion on the DG’s investigation report. Ultratech challenged that decision, but a Single Judge rejected its challenge in December 2023.
Court’s Observation
The Division Bench rejected Ultratech’s argument that the CCI’s order was unreasoned. It noted that the CCI had recorded its satisfaction that BAI had a substantial interest in the proceedings and that allowing it to present its views was necessary for a meaningful inquiry.
The Court also rejected the argument that the CCI had improperly reviewed its earlier decision refusing BAI’s impleadment. It pointed out that the two applications were made at different stages of the proceedings. When the first application was rejected, the DG’s investigation was still pending. By the time BAI applied again, the investigation had been completed and the report submitted.
The Bench further held that permitting BAI to participate did not violate principles of natural justice. The appellant had already been aware that BAI had been permitted access to the non-confidential investigation report and to present its opinion.
"Such impleadment would be in aid of the Commission to arrive at a correct and just conclusions of the proceedings."
Decision
The Court also took note of a February 2024 Supreme Court order recording BAI’s statement that it would not seek inspection of documents marked confidential. It held that BAI’s participation would therefore be confined to providing its opinion on the non-confidential part of the DG’s report.
Finding no merit in Ultratech’s appeal, the Division Bench dismissed it. The connected applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.
-300x169.webp)
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
