Delhi High Court Upholds BAI Impleadment In CCI's Grey Cement Cartel Probe, Dismisses UltraTech Appeal
The Delhi High Court has dismissed UltraTech Cement Ltd.'s appeal against the Competition Commission of India's decision to implead the Builders Association of India (BAI) in its suo motu probe into alleged cartelisation and price manipulation by grey cement manufacturers.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed UltraTech's appeal against the Single Judge's order upholding the CCI's decision.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had earlier heard UltraTech's challenge, held that BAI had a substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings and that its participation was necessary for a meaningful inquiry. The Court found no ground to interfere with the CCI's decision under Regulation 25 of the CCI (General) Regulations, 2009.
The dispute arose from UltraTech Cement Ltd.'s challenge to a Competition Commission of India order impleading the Builders Association of India (BAI) in an ongoing suo motu investigation into alleged cartelisation and price manipulation by grey cement manufacturers. The CCI had initiated the investigation in 2019 following complaints, including one by BAI alleging abnormal increases in cement prices.
The Director General subsequently conducted search and seizure operations at the premises of five cement manufacturers, including UltraTech, and submitted its investigation report in July 2022. BAI later sought to participate in the proceedings.
Although its earlier impleadment request had been rejected, the CCI on July 5, 2023 allowed BAI to be impleaded under Regulation 25 of the CCI (General) Regulations, 2009 and permitted it to inspect non-confidential records.
UltraTech challenged this order before the Delhi High Court, arguing that BAI's impleadment was impermissible at such an advanced stage, violated natural justice and confidentiality protections.
The High Court held that BAI had a substantial interest in the outcome and that its participation was necessary in the public interest. It declined to substitute its view for the CCI's satisfaction under Regulation 25 and dismissed UltraTech's challenge.