The Supreme Court held that volume-based discounts by a market player do not automatically amount to discriminatory pricing under Competition Law. There must be demonstrable evidence of harm to competition.
In 2010, Kapoor Glass, a manufacturer of ampoules and vials, filed a complaint against Schott India, a dominant supplier of neutral borosilicate glass tubes. They alleged that it offered preferential discounts in volumes, resulting in discriminatory pricing. This placed other downstream buyers at a competitive disadvantage in the market. In 2012, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) ruled that Schott India had violated Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, but the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) overturned the order.
On appeal, the Court found no evidence that Schott India’s conduct had resulted in, or is likely to result in, an adverse effect on competition. It affirmed the COMPAT’s order, holding that Section 4 prohibits the abuse of market dominance, not market dominance per se.
Competition Commission of India v Schott Glass India
13 May 2025
Citations: 2025 INSC 668 | 2025 SCO.LR 5(2)[9]
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and P.B. Varale
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/
#legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #competitionact #abuse #marketdominance #volumebaseddiscounts #discriminatorypricing
Key words/phrases: Section 4—Competition Act, 2002—abuse of market dominance—volume discounts in themselves do not harm competition—volume-based discounts do not amount to discriminatory pricing—adverse effect on competition should be demonstrated
Read the Judgement here.