New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed UltraTech Cement Ltd’s appeal challenging the inclusion of the Builders Association of India (BAI) as a formal party in a Competition Commission of India (CCI) investigation into alleged price manipulation and cartelisation in the cement industry.
A two-judge Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed UltraTech’s appeal on Tuesday, upholding an earlier decision that allowed BAI to participate in the long-running antitrust proceedings.
The case dates back to 2019, when the CCI began a suo motu investigation into allegations that major grey cement manufacturers had coordinated their conduct in ways that affected cement prices and supply. The investigation covers alleged cartelisation and price manipulation and does not represent a final finding of wrongdoing against the companies involved.
What the Delhi High Court ruled
The latest proceedings centred on whether BAI should be permitted to participate as a party in the CCI’s investigation.
The High Court’s Division Bench rejected UltraTech’s challenge, effectively confirming BAI’s continued participation in the competition proceedings. The court’s decision follows an earlier ruling by a single judge, which had also declined to remove BAI from the case.
The Division Bench held that the association’s inclusion in the proceedings could stand. The decision does not determine whether the cement manufacturers actually violated competition law. That question remains part of the underlying CCI proceedings.
The court therefore dealt primarily with the procedural question of BAI’s participation rather than deciding the merits of the cartelisation allegations.
How the cement probe began
The investigation originated in concerns raised about cement prices and market conduct.
According to court records, the CCI received several communications from market participants alleging adverse competitive effects arising from the conduct of grey cement manufacturers. BAI had submitted a complaint on February 8, 2019, alleging cartelisation and abnormal increases in grey cement prices.
On July 1, 2019, the CCI initiated a suo motu proceeding under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002. The matter became known as Suo Moto Case No. 2 of 2019 and focused on allegations concerning grey cement manufacturers during the period from December 2018 to May 2019.
The case subsequently developed into a major competition investigation involving some of India’s largest cement manufacturers.
BAI represents major cement buyers
The Builders Association of India represents more than 20,000 contractors and builders, according to the court record cited in the proceedings. The association represents businesses that purchase substantial quantities of cement, particularly in the non-trade segment.
NDTV Profit reported that BAI’s members account for roughly 70% of India’s cement consumption. Its participation therefore gives cement buyers a formal voice in proceedings examining allegations concerning pricing and supply practices.
BAI had initially approached the CCI as an informant. After the matter progressed, it sought to be formally impleaded as a party to the proceedings.
The association’s involvement became particularly important because the investigation concerns alleged conduct that could affect downstream consumers of cement, including infrastructure companies, contractors and real estate developers.
CCI allowed BAI to join proceedings in 2023
In July 2023, the CCI allowed BAI’s application to be impleaded as a party in the investigation.
The commission found that BAI had a substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings and that its participation would assist in a meaningful examination of the matter. The association was subsequently given access to non-confidential case records and the Director General’s investigation report.
UltraTech challenged the CCI’s decision before the Delhi High Court.
A single judge of the High Court rejected the challenge in 2023, allowing BAI to remain part of the proceedings. UltraTech then approached the Division Bench, resulting in the latest ruling.
The Division Bench has now dismissed that appeal, leaving BAI’s inclusion intact.
Confidential business information remains protected
The court proceedings also addressed concerns surrounding access to sensitive commercial information.
BAI was permitted to access non-confidential records and the Director General’s report. However, proprietary commercial information remains protected under the confidentiality framework applicable to the CCI proceedings.
This means BAI’s participation does not give it unrestricted access to confidential business information belonging to UltraTech or other companies involved in the investigation.
The distinction is important because competition investigations can involve commercially sensitive information relating to pricing, production, sales, supply and business strategies.
Search and seizure operations were conducted
The investigation also involved significant enforcement steps.
Court records state that the CCI’s Director General received approval for search and seizure operations at the premises of five grey cement manufacturers, including UltraTech. The searches were carried out in December 2020 under the relevant provisions of the Competition Act and Companies Act.
These investigative measures formed part of the broader process through which the competition regulator examined the allegations.
However, the existence of an investigation or search operation should not be interpreted as proof that the companies investigated committed cartelisation or price manipulation. A final determination on liability would have to follow the applicable legal and regulatory process.
Why the ruling matters for cement buyers
The Delhi High Court’s decision is significant because it allows an association representing large cement consumers to remain directly involved in the competition proceedings.
For builders and contractors, cement prices are a major component of construction costs. Any sustained or coordinated increase in prices can have implications for infrastructure projects, housing construction and real estate development.
BAI’s participation could allow the interests and experiences of large cement consumers to be represented during the regulatory process.
At the same time, cement manufacturers continue to have the right to contest the allegations and present their case before the competent authorities.
What happens next
The High Court’s latest decision settles UltraTech’s challenge to BAI’s impleadment at this stage, but it does not conclude the underlying CCI investigation.
The central issue remains whether the evidence establishes any violation of competition law by the cement manufacturers under investigation.
The CCI’s proceedings will therefore remain important for the industry. Any eventual findings could have implications for cement manufacturers, buyers and the broader construction sector.
For now, the Delhi High Court has confirmed that BAI can remain a formal participant in the proceedings and access permitted non-confidential material.
The ruling is consequently a procedural victory for the Builders Association of India, while the substantive allegations of cement price manipulation and cartelisation remain to be determined through the competition-law process.