In UltraTech Cement Ltd v. Competition Commission of India, LPA 8/2024 (decided 8 September 2026), a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal against a Single Judge's refusal to interfere with the CCI's order permitting the Builders' Association of India to participate in cartelisation proceedings against cement manufacturers. The Bench held that Regulation 25(1) of the CCI (General) Regulations, 2009 allows any person or enterprise with sufficient interest to be impleaded where participation furthers the public interest, that competition proceedings are proceedings in rem, and that no violation of natural justice had occurred. The judgment also illustrates the discipline of the LPA jurisdiction — what a Division Bench will and will not revisit.
How the dispute reached a Division Bench
In cartelisation proceedings against cement manufacturers, the CCI allowed the Builders' Association of India — the complainant constituency most affected by cement pricing — to participate and to inspect non-confidential investigation records. UltraTech challenged that order by writ petition; a Single Judge dismissed it in December 2023. The intra-court appeal under the Letters Patent followed, and has now been dismissed.
The holding
"Any party or person or entity or an enterprise having sufficient interest in the matter can be impleaded in the proceedings of the Commission, which in our opinion will be only to farther the public interest" — participation aids the Commission in reaching "correct and just conclusions."
Three strands support the conclusion. First, the text of Regulation 25(1) itself, which conditions impleadment on substantial interest and public interest — both satisfied by a pan-India consumers' association in a cartel matter. Second, the in rem character of competition proceedings: the Competition Act protects markets and consumers at large, not merely the contesting parties, so participation rules are read in that light. Third, procedural fairness: UltraTech had notice, the CCI's order was reasoned, and confidentiality claims remain available to shield commercially sensitive material from impleaded parties.
What this means for enterprises facing CCI proceedings
The appellate lesson
The case is equally instructive as a study in intra-court appeals. An LPA is not a second writ petition: the Division Bench asked whether the Single Judge had misapplied the law, not whether a different view of Regulation 25 was possible. Enterprises weighing an LPA against an unfavourable order on a regulator's procedural discretion should assess candidly whether they can identify an error of principle — absent one, the appeal risks adding an adverse Division Bench precedent to an already adverse record, which is precisely what occurred here. The same calculus applies across Delhi High Court commercial practice, whether the underlying regulator is the CCI, SEBI or a sectoral authority.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can be impleaded in proceedings before the CCI?
Under Regulation 25(1) of the CCI (General) Regulations, 2009, the Commission may permit a person or enterprise to take part in proceedings if it is satisfied the applicant has substantial interest in the outcome and that participation is necessary in the public interest. The Delhi High Court has now affirmed a broad reading: sufficient interest plus public interest suffices.
Why did the Builders' Association qualify?
As an all-India association representing the largest consumer base of cement, directly affected by the alleged cartel, it plainly held substantial interest in the outcome of the cartelisation probe. The CCI's order recorded that satisfaction, which the Court found adequately reasoned.
Does impleadment prejudge anything against the opposing enterprise?
No. The Bench emphasised that an impleadment decision is neither conclusive nor determinative of any party's rights — it only ensures the Commission has the material and perspectives needed to reach correct conclusions. Confidentiality regimes continue to protect sensitive business information.
What is the scope of an LPA against a Single Judge's order in such matters?
The Division Bench examines whether the Single Judge's view suffers from a legal error warranting interference — it is not a fresh round of merits review of the regulator's discretion. Where the Single Judge has applied the correct test to a reasoned regulatory order, the LPA will ordinarily fail.