The Supreme Court ruled that Schott Glass India did not abuse its dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. It held that volume-based discounts and long-term supply agreements were commercially justified and lacked anti-competitive effects. The Court emphasized the necessity of an “effects-based analysis” to prove abuse of dominance and rejected the Competition Commission of India’s findings due to insufficient evidence and procedural lapses, including denial of cross-examination. The judgment reaffirms that mere market dominance is not illegal unless proven to harm competition.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from a complaint filed by Kapoor Glass India Pvt. Ltd. before the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in 2010, alleging that Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd., a leading manufacturer of borosilicate glass tubing used in pharmaceutical packaging, abused its dominant position in violation of Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Kapoor Glass accused Schott of anti-competitive practices, including exclusionary volume-based discounts, discriminatory contractual terms, and refusal to supply. The CCI’s investigation found Schott dominant in the upstream market (glass tubing) and held that its rebate schemes and long-term supply agreement with its joint venture, Schott Kaisha, distorted competition. It imposed a penalty of ₹5.66 crore and issued a cease-and-desist order.
Schott appealed to the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT), which overturned the CCI’s order, ruling that the evidence was untested and lacked proof of anti-competitive harm. The CCI and Kapoor Glass then approached the Supreme Court. The apex court upheld COMPAT’s decision, emphasizing that Schott’s discounts were objectively justified, no foreclosure of competitors was proven, and the CCI’s reliance on unverified statements without cross-examination violated procedural fairness. The judgment clarified that dominance alone is not abusive unless it demonstrably harms competition.
Procedural History:
The case began in 2010 when Kapoor Glass India Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint before the Competition Commission of India (CCI), alleging that Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. abused its dominant position in the borosilicate glass tubing market. The CCI’s Director General (DG) investigated and, in 2011, submitted a report concluding that Schott violated Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. Based on this, the CCI’s majority order (2012) imposed a ₹5.66 crore penalty and issued a cease-and-desist directive. Schott appealed to the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT), which in 2014 set aside the CCI’s order, citing lack of evidence and procedural flaws, including denial of cross-examination.
The CCI and Kapoor Glass then appealed to the Supreme Court, which in 2025 upheld COMPAT’s decision, ruling that Schott’s conduct was not anti-competitive and emphasizing the necessity of effects-based analysis in abuse of dominance cases. The Supreme Court also criticized the CCI for relying on untested witness statements and confirmed that mere dominance is not illegal without proven harm to competition.
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations in its judgment. Firstly, it emphasized that dominance alone does not constitute abuse under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 – the conduct must actually distort competition or harm consumers. The Court stressed the necessity of an “effects-based analysis”, requiring proof of appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC) rather than mere theoretical harm.
Regarding Schott’s rebate schemes, the Court found them objectively justified as they were volume-based, uniformly applicable, and promoted manufacturing efficiency without foreclosing competitors. It noted that differential pricing based on quantity is a legitimate business practice unless proven discriminatory. The long-term supply agreement with Schott Kaisha was also upheld as commercially reasonable, with no evidence of margin squeeze or foreclosure of rivals.
The judgment strongly criticized the CCI’s procedural lapses, particularly its denial of cross-examination to Schott, which violated principles of natural justice. The Court held that reliance on untested witness statements without adversarial scrutiny made the CCI’s findings unreliable. Finally, it reiterated that competition law must balance market regulation with economic growth, avoiding overreach that could deter legitimate business practices.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and Kapoor Glass, thereby upholding the Competition Appellate Tribunal’s (COMPAT) 2014 order that had set aside the CCI’s penalty against Schott Glass. In its final judgment, the Court absolved Schott Glass of all allegations of abusing its dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. It ruled that the volume-based discounts and long-term supply agreements were legitimate business practices that did not distort competition or harm consumers.
The Court quashed the ₹5.66 crore penalty imposed by the CCI and rejected the cease-and-desist order, holding that the CCI had failed to establish anti-competitive effects through credible evidence. Additionally, the Court imposed costs of ₹5 lakhs on Kapoor Glass for pursuing unsubstantiated claims, while reaffirming that competition law must not penalize efficient market conduct or discourage legitimate scale-based incentives. The judgment underscored that dominance becomes abusive only when it demonstrably harms competition, and not merely because a firm holds a strong market position.
Case Details:
Case Title: Competition Commission of India (Appellant) vs. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Respondents) Along with Kapoor Glass India Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) vs. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) Citation: (2025) INSC 668 (as per the document header) Civil Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 5843 of 2014 (CCI vs. Schott Glass) & Civil Appeal No. 9998 of 2014 (Kapoor Glass vs. Schott Glass) Date of Judgment: May 13, 2025 Bench/Judges: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Download The Judgement Here