Case Law Details
Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs Competition Commission of India & Anr (Delhi High Court)
Writ petition by Ultra Tech against CCI order on cartelisation by manufacturers causing increase of Grey Cement Prices was quashed
Conclusion: Writ petition filed by Ultra Tech against the order of the Competition Commission on cartelisation by manufacturers causing increase of grey cement prices was quashed as invoking Section 53N was neither an option for assessee, nor was there any reason to prefer an application for compensation when there existed a carved out provision in the form of Regulation 25 which allowed the party to take part in the proceedings before the CCI after its satisfaction; proceedings under the Competition Act apply in rem was of no consequence when the CCI was adjudicating the allegations regarding the cartelization and price manipulation.
Held: Assessee-company was a public company principally engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of grey cement, building and cement related products. Competition Commission of India (CCI) was a statutory authority constituted under the Competition Act, 2002. Builders Association of India, was an association of over 20,000 infrastructure development programmers and builders of real estate engaged in the purchasing of grey cements from grey cement manufacturing companies in the non-trade segment. It was stated that CCI, prior to 01.07.2019, received multiple letters and emails from various participants in the market, including customer trade associations and dealers, alleging that the conduct of grey cement manufacturers had adverse competitive effects within the country. Among them was also a letter dated 08.02.2019 from Builders Association of India (BAI), alleging cartelisation by grey cement manufacturers causing abnormal increase of grey cement prices. It was stated that the CCI passed a Suo Moto Order under section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002, directing the Director General of the Competition Commission of India, to initiate investigations into the above-mentioned allegations levied against the several Grey Cement Manufacturers, during the period between December 2018 to May 2019, the proceedings of which were Suo Moto Case No. 02 of 2019. It was stated that in furtherance of the investigation, the Director General of CCI was granted approval application of a warrant for search and seizure under section 41(3) of the Competition Act 2002 read with Section 240A of the Companies Act, 1956 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House District Courts, New Delhi, at the premise of five grey cement manufacturers, including that of assessee. It was stated that before the first date of the final hearing dated 29.09.2022, BAI on 27.09.2022 filed an application before CCI in terms of Section 18 and Section 36 of the Competition Act, 2002 read with Regulation 25 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations 2009, seeking its impleadment as a ‘party’ to the proceedings. It was further stated that neither assessee nor any other grey cement manufacturer was made a party in this application by BAI. In view of the above application, the CCI directed that BAI be provided a copy of the Prima Facie Order as well as the Director General’s report, and invited BAI to present its opinion, if any, on the report. BAI might be allowed to inspect the non-confidential records in the present matter in terms of Regulation 37(1) of the General Regulations. 10. The present writ petition had been filed by assessee praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued or any other appropriate writ to set aside the impugned Order passed by CCI which allowed the impleadment application of BAI and allowed its inspection of non-confidential records. It was held that the stage at which compensation under Section 53N could be invoked was that of an Appellate Stage, post the final orders of CCI in any proceedings initiated before it. Therefore, at the present stage of proceedings in the Suo Moto Case No. 2 of 2019, invoking Section 53N was neither an option for assessee, nor was there any reason to prefer an application for compensation when there existed a carved out provision in the form of Regulation 25 which allowed the party to take part in the proceedings before the CCI after its satisfaction. The fact that the proceedings under the Competition Act apply in rem was of no consequence when the CCI was adjudicating the allegations regarding the cartelization and price manipulation. The Court was not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition which prayed for quashing of the impugned Order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the CCI.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
