Court finds Builders' Association of India has substantial interest and public importance in the antitrust proceedings, dismisses Ultratech Cement's challenge citing no breach of natural justice
In a significant judgment dated 8th September 2026, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by Ultratech Cement Ltd. against the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) order permitting the Builders' Association of India (BAI) to be impleaded in a suo moto antitrust proceeding against cement manufacturers.
The original order dated 5th July 2023 by the CCI allowed BAI to participate in proceedings initiated under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 following allegations of cartelization and price-fixing amongst grey cement manufacturers. The CCI held that BAI, being the largest consumer body in the cement sector, had a substantial interest in the matter and its participation was necessary in public interest to aid a meaningful inquiry. BAI was also granted access to non-confidential investigation records and the opportunity to submit its opinion on the Director General's investigation report.
Ultratech Cement challenged the CCI's order on multiple grounds, contending that:
- - The CCI's order was non-speaking and lacked proper reasons.
- - The appellant was denied natural justice as no prior notice or hearing opportunity was provided before impleading BAI.
- - The earlier rejection of BAI's impleadment application in 2021 barred reconsideration.
- - BAI was a hostile party and its participation would risk disclosure of confidential information.
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the facts and legal provisions, including Regulation 25(1) of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, which authorizes the CCI to permit a person or enterprise to participate in proceedings if it has substantial interest and its presence is necessary in the public interest.
Rejecting Ultratech's contentions, the Court observed that:
- - The CCI's order explicitly recorded its satisfaction on BAI's substantial interest and public interest necessity, thus constituting adequate reasons.
- - The appellant was duly aware of BAI's application and subsequent procedural developments, including the order dated 6th October 2022 which provided BAI access to non-confidential reports and directed that copies be served on the appellant, negating claims of absence of notice and opportunity.
- - The earlier rejection of BAI's impleadment application occurred at an earlier stage of investigation; however, upon completion of the investigation and submission of the DG's report, the Court's prior order in a related writ petition granted BAI liberty to reapply, which it did, and the CCI rightly allowed.
- - Proceedings before the CCI under the Competition Act are in rem (in respect to the public and market) and not strictly adversarial litigation; hence, principles like Order I Rule 10 CPC do not strictly apply, and impleadment is to assist the CCI in arriving at a just conclusion.
- - Confidentiality concerns were addressed by the BAI's undertaking in the Supreme Court that it would not seek access to confidential documents.
The Court also took note of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's dismissal of a Special Leave Petition in a related matter involving Dalmia Cement (another cement manufacturer), which upheld BAI's impleadment and recorded BAI's undertaking on confidentiality, further strengthening the position that the appeal was rendered largely infructuous.
Emphasizing the public interest nature of antitrust proceedings, the Court held that allowing a key consumer association like BAI to participate would enable the CCI to consider all relevant views and evidence for an effective inquiry into alleged anti-competitive practices affecting the cement market and consumers at large.
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, affirming that the CCI acted within its statutory mandate and consistent with principles of natural justice.
This judgment reinforces the power of the Competition Commission of India to involve stakeholders with substantial interest in competition matters to ensure transparency, fairness, and comprehensive adjudication in anti-competition investigations.
Bottom Line:
Competition Law - Impleadment of a party in proceedings before the Competition Commission of India is permissible if the party has substantial interest in the outcome and its participation is deemed necessary in public interest.
Statutory provision(s):
Competition Act, 2002 Section 26(1), Section 36 (post-substitution), Regulation 25(1) of Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009
Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Competition Commission of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2974080
