Delhi High Court Clarifies Participation in CCI Proceedings
The Delhi High Court has affirmed that individuals or entities with a substantive interest in a competition law matter may be permitted to join proceedings before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) if their involvement serves to support the CCI’s objectives and promote public interest. This decision was rendered in the case of Ultratech Cement Vs CCI, as determined by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia.
The ruling arose from an appeal by UltraTech Cement, which challenged the CCI’s decision to involve the Builders’ Association of India (BAI) in proceedings related to alleged cartelization among cement manufacturers. The Court emphasized that the CCI’s investigation was primarily intended to safeguard public interest by curbing anti-competitive practices and protecting consumers. The Court stated, “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 (made party) in the proceedings of the Commission, which in our opinion will be only to further the public interest.”
The Court further clarified that the inclusion of a party in CCI proceedings does not determine the rights of the parties involved. Instead, it serves to assist the CCI in reaching a well-informed conclusion on potential breaches of competition law.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a suo motu investigation initiated by the CCI in 2019 following complaints of cartelization and unusual price hikes in grey cement. BAI was among the complainants. Upon completion of the investigation by the Director General, who submitted a report in July 2022, BAI sought to participate in the subsequent proceedings. The CCI approved this request in July 2023 under Regulation 25 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, recognizing BAI’s significant interest in the outcome. BAI was thus allowed to review non-confidential documents and submit its perspective on the investigation report.
UltraTech Cement contested this decision, arguing that it was issued without a proper hearing and constituted an impermissible review of a previously rejected application by BAI. The High Court, however, dismissed these arguments, asserting that parties involved in CCI proceedings cannot monopolize the process by determining who may participate.
More Read
Court’s Stand on Participation and Rights
The Court underscored that allowing participation in CCI proceedings does not, in itself, establish any rights or obligations for the parties involved. Such participation is merely procedural, designed to aid the regulator in gathering necessary information and viewpoints to assess potential violations of the Competition Act.
Importantly, the Court noted that BAI’s applications were filed at different procedural stages. The initial application was rejected during the ongoing investigation, while the subsequent one was filed after the investigation had concluded. This distinction justified the acceptance of the later application without constituting a review of the earlier decision.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed UltraTech’s appeal. UltraTech was represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, along with a team from JSA Advocates & Solicitors, while Advocate Aakanksha Kaul represented the CCI, and Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria, among others, represented BAI.
