CCI | Regulatory Power To Implead Third Parties Under Regulation 25 Is For Public Interest, Not Subject To Principles Of Dominus Litis: Delhi High Court

"The Commission is satisfied that BAI has substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings and that it is necessary to allow it to present its opinion in this matter for a meaningful inquiry." Delhi High Court, in a latest judgment dated 08 September 2026, held that the CCI possesses the statutory authority to implead parties under Regulation 25 of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, to assist in reaching a "just conclusion" in public interest.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed an appeal filed by Ultratech Cement Ltd., affirming that competition proceedings are not private disputes governed by the principles of dominus litis, but are inquiries intended to protect market competition.

The dispute arose from a suo moto case initiated by the CCI in 2019 following allegations of cartelization by various grey cement manufacturers, including the appellant. The Builders’ Association of India (BAI) sought impleadment, which was initially rejected by the CCI in 2021 during the investigation stage. Following the submission of the Director General’s (DG) report in 2022, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court granted BAI liberty to move a fresh application under Regulation 25. Upon the CCI subsequently allowing BAI’s impleadment, Ultratech Cement challenged the order, arguing that it lacked reasoning and violated natural justice.

The court was tasked with determining whether the CCI’s order allowing impleadment was a non-speaking, ex-parte order passed in violation of natural justice. Furthermore, it examined whether the CCI acted outside its jurisdiction by reviewing its own earlier order rejecting the BAI's impleadment. The bench also addressed the contention regarding whether an opposing party in competition proceedings holds the status of dominus litis, thereby precluding the intervention of third-party intervenors.

The court examined the scope of Regulation 25(1) of the 2009 Regulations, which empowers the Commission to permit any person or enterprise to participate if they demonstrate a "substantial interest" in the proceedings and if such participation is deemed necessary in the public interest.

CCI’s Power Under Regulation 25

The bench observed that the CCI’s satisfaction regarding BAI’s "substantial interest" was clearly recorded in its order. The court noted that BAI, as an all-India association of builders and the largest consumer of grey cement, is directly impacted by anti-competitive practices, making its participation inherently valuable to the inquiry.

No Application Of 'Dominus Litis' In CCI Proceedings

The court rejected the appellant's attempt to apply the principles of Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. Unlike a private civil suit where the plaintiff is dominus litis and controls the parties, competition proceedings serve a broader public purpose. The court held that the impleadment of an intervenor like BAI is for the benefit of the Commission to facilitate a "meaningful inquiry," rather than for the benefit of the impleaded party itself.

"Impleadment of any party cannot be said to be for the benefit of the party being impleaded, rather such impleadment is for the benefit of the Commission itself to conclusively reach an appropriate decision in the matter."

No Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice

Regarding the claim of an ex-parte order, the court found that the appellant had constructive notice of the proceedings. The Commission’s previous order dated 06.10.2022, which directed the sharing of the non-confidential version of the DG report with BAI, was communicated to the opposite parties. Consequently, the appellant was fully aware that the impleadment process was underway.

Impact Of Supreme Court’s Observations In Dalmia Cement

The court also addressed the appellant's argument that the appeal was rendered infructuous by the Supreme Court’s order in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. CCI. While the court agreed with the appellant that the Supreme Court kept the question of law open, it highlighted that the recorded statement by BAI—that it would not inspect documents marked as "confidential"—effectively mitigated any potential prejudice to the cement manufacturers.

Rejection Of Review Contention

The court clarified that the CCI did not "review" its earlier rejection order. The circumstances had changed significantly; the initial rejection occurred while the DG investigation was pending, whereas the subsequent impleadment was allowed after the DG report was finalized and submitted, in accordance with the liberty granted by the High Court.

The High Court upheld the impugned order, reiterating that the impleadment did not constitute a final determination of any legal right or obligation, but was merely a procedural step to aid the Commission’s investigative mandate. The appeal was dismissed, with the court concluding that no prejudice was caused to the appellant.

Date of Decision: 08 September 2026