On May 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of Competition Commission of India v. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. and Another (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 557), overturning a decade-old ruling by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) against Schott Glass India.

The dispute originated from a complaint filed by Kapoor Glass, a manufacturer of glass ampoules and vials, alleging that Schott Glass India, a dominant supplier of neutral borosilicate glass tubes, was abusing its market position. The allegations included offering exclusionary volume-based discounts, imposing discriminatory contractual terms, and occasionally refusing supply. In 2012, the CCI found Schott Glass India guilty of these practices and imposed a fine of ₹5.66 crore, along with a cease-and-desist order.

Schott Glass India appealed the decision to the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT), which in 2014 reversed the CCI’s findings, stating that volume-based discounts do not automatically constitute discriminatory pricing unless applied unequally to similarly situated buyers in comparable transactions. The COMPAT also found that the refusal to supply Kapoor Glass was valid, as the latter had previously used counterfeit branding associated with Schott Glass.

The Supreme Court upheld the COMPAT’s decision, emphasizing that the CCI had failed to conduct a credible assessment of harm to competition. The Court noted that the CCI relied on untested statements and pre-2009 correspondence, and did not provide evidence of appreciable adverse effects on competition. The Court observed that rigid enforcement of rules without considering market realities could hinder India’s aspirations to become a global manufacturing hub.

Additionally, the Supreme Court enhanced the fine on Kapoor Glass from ₹1 lakh (imposed by COMPAT) to ₹5 lakh, citing the “wholly unsubstantiated nature of the allegations and the prolonged litigation.” The costs are to be paid to Schott Glass India within eight weeks.

This judgment is significant as it clarifies that volume-based discounts are not inherently anti-competitive under the Competition Act, 2002. It underscores the importance of an “effects-based” approach in assessing alleged abuses of dominance, focusing on actual harm to competition rather than rigid rule enforcement. The decision is expected to influence future competition law cases, particularly in sectors where bulk discounts are common business practices.

Sources