ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD v. COMPETITION COMPETITION COMMISSION INDIA & ANR.
The Commission's inquiry under the Competition Act, 2002 is in rem and in public interest; regulation 25 lets the CCI permit a person or enterprise with a substantial interest to present its opinion and take part where necessary in public interest, the satisfaction being the CCI's; a writ court does not substitute its view unless the order is perverse or beyond jurisdiction; the order was adequately reasoned; the opposite parties had notice of the order of 6 October 2022 giving BAI the report; impleadment is not a review of the order of 29 December 2021 as it followed a fresh application after the High Court's liberty of 26 September 2022; and the access was only to non-confidential records under regulation 37(1) and section 57.
By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-10-10
Builders Association of India, representing over 20,000 builders who buy cement, sought to take part in the CCI's suo motu inquiry into cartelisation by grey cement manufacturers. UltraTech argued that impleading it at the stage of final hearing converted an inquisitorial inquiry into an adversarial one, without reasons or notice to it.
What happened
On 1 July 2019 the CCI passed a suo motu order under section 26(1) of the Competition Act directing the Director General to investigate allegations of cartelisation and price manipulation by grey cement manufacturers, following letters from market participants including a letter of 8 February 2019 from BAI. Searches were carried out on 9 and 10 December 2020 at five manufacturers including UltraTech. BAI's application of 29 November 2021 for impleadment as informant was rejected on 29 December 2021 because the investigation was at an advanced stage, and its writ petition (W.P. No. 8958 of 2022) was disposed of on 26 September 2022 with liberty to approach the CCI under the General Regulations. The Director General's report was completed on 1 July 2022, and on 26 July 2022 the CCI asked the opposite parties for objections and fixed the final hearing for 29 and 30 September 2022. BAI applied on 27 September 2022 under sections 18 and 36 and regulation 25 to be made a party, the CCI by order of 6 October 2022 directed that BAI be given the prima facie order and the report and present its opinion within six weeks, and by order of 5 July 2023 impleaded BAI as a party and allowed inspection of non-confidential records under regulation 37(1). UltraTech said the proceedings are in rem and inquisitorial, that BAI was one among 21 complainants, that the order was unreasoned, ex parte and a de facto review without power after the repeal of section 37, that it violated section 57 and article 21, and that BAI had the remedy of section 53N compensation.
Questions before the court
- Could the CCI under regulation 25 of the General Regulations, 2009 implead the Builders Association of India as a party and allow it to inspect non-confidential records, at the stage after the Director General's report?
Why the court ruled this way
The Court exercises restraint in judicial review of the CCI's decision, interfering only for perversity, jurisdictional error or arbitrariness, as in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and State of Punjab v. Mehar Din (paragraphs 28 to 34). The CCI recorded BAI's submissions that it is an all-India association of the largest consumers of cement directly affected by the alleged cartel, which satisfies the twin test of substantial interest and public interest under regulation 25, and a brief statement of reasons suffices (paragraphs 33 to 39). The opposite parties had notice because the order of 6 October 2022, giving BAI the report and inviting its opinion, was forwarded to them and eight inspections followed, and no objection was made (paragraphs 40 to 45). The inquiry under the Act is in rem, as Samir Agarwal v. Competition Commission of India held, so impleading a party does not determine anyone's rights and is for the CCI to reach an informed conclusion (paragraphs 46 to 50). The order of 5 July 2023 was a fresh decision on a fresh application filed under the High Court's liberty and after the Director General's report, not a review, so the repeal of section 37 does not matter (paragraphs 51 to 55). The order allowed only non-confidential records in terms of regulation 37(1), subject to section 57 and regulation 35 (paragraphs 56 to 59). Section 53N compensation arises only after a finding of violation and is no substitute for participation (paragraphs 60 and 61).
Controlling point
The impleadment order was within the CCI's powers, reasoned, made with notice, and not a review, and no case for interference under Article 226 was made out.
Order and next steps
The writ petition was dismissed and pending applications also stood dismissed.
Practical implications
A cement manufacturer or other enterprise under a CCI inquiry cannot generally resist the impleadment of a consumer body that shows substantial interest and public interest; its protection lies in confidentiality of its records and an opportunity to respond to the participant's opinion.
Limits of this ruling
- This is a Single Judge decision on the stage of the CCI's inquiry and the court did not decide the merits of the cartel allegations; this is the Single Judge's judgment in W.P.(C) 9854/2023, and the outcome of any appeal is not covered here.
Law and judgment source
- Competition Act, 2002, sections 18, 19, 26, 36, 53N, 57 and 64
- Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, regulations 21, 25, 35 and 37
- Constitution of India, articles 21, 226 and 227
The linked PDF is a complete public court-copy document. The official court portal is provided for independent verification; a stable judgment-specific official link was not independently established.
Source checked: 2026-10-10 · Judgment paragraphs: paragraphs 1-62 · Later case history: not verified. Verify appeals, stays and subsequent orders before reliance.
This page is informational. Verify the current official court record, subsequent history and applicable law, and obtain professional advice for a specific matter.