US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, P. D. AUDIKESAVALU
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. , Rep. by its Manager-Legal, R. Deepak, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
Competition Commission of India, Through the Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in W.A.No.2227 of 2023: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 14.08.2023 in W.P.No.22263 of 2023;
In W.A.No.2218 of 2023: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 14.08.2023 in W.P.No.22045 of 2023.)
Common Judgment:
Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, CJ.
1. The Competition Commission of India, under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act, 2002 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2002”) ordered to issue suo motu proceedings to analyse the complaints received by it against various cement manufacturers. The complaints were on account of steep rise in price of cement. It directed the office of the Director General of the Competition Commission of India to investigate the complaints and further to determine whether the cement manufacturing Companies had committed any act in contravention to Section 3(3)(a & b) of the Act of 2002. It appears that the issue of cartelisation was also inves
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and highlighted the futility of arguments when the opposing party has already been provided with inspection of rel....
The Competition Commission of India must establish a prima facie case before ordering an investigation; failure to do so renders its orders void.
The judgment establishes that the CCI must have a principled prima facie basis to initiate an investigation under the Competition Act, failing which such directives lack jurisdiction and can be quash....
The court established that a prima facie case of cartelisation can be inferred from parallel pricing among a limited number of suppliers, and that the CCI has the authority to initiate investigations....
The court established that a High Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226(2) when another High Court is already considering the same matter, emphasizing the principles of territo....
The court emphasized that the formation of a prima facie opinion by the Commission is mandatory for any investigation under the Competition Act. It also clarified that the presence of unauthorized of....
An order under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act is administrative, only initiating an investigation without affecting parties' rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article