Glass Anmumu and small vial maker Kapoor Glass (the complainant in this case) claimed that Schott Glass violated competition law by resorting to discriminatory pricing and leveraging its market advantage, and that dominance is adversely placed on downstream buyers as such.
Maintaining the now-disappearing Competition Appeal Tribunal’s decision in April 2014, which shelved the CCI’s orders, fined Rs 5.66 crore and asked Schott Glass to stop departing from discriminatory practices, while CCI’s official vikram Nath and Prasanna Bvara held CCI’s untimely statements and did not conduct any assessments.
“…The omission of appropriate hazard analysis limits the CCI’s order. As the alleged abuse has been denied the facts, the appeal (the appeal made by CCI and Kapoor Glass) must also fail on this additional position, and therefore, the Apex Court held that the adverse effects on competition were adversely affected, which was negatively affected by the cancellation of collateral redemption.”
The SC fine increased the fine of Rs a hundred thousand (imposed by Compat) to Rs 5 million on Kapoor Glass because of its “absolute lack of fundamental nature and extended litigation”. The fee must be paid to Schott India within eight weeks.
Percival Billimoria, a senior attorney representing Schott India, welcomed the judgment, “It is important that the judgment sets out the principle that Section 4 of the abuse of domination cases will follow an “effect-based” approach. This is the first legal announcement. In this case, the competition law on the bench says that the competition law is not intended to make successful or realize the business, not the business of the business, and is the business of the business of the business, and is the business of the business of the business. Antitrust law is to ensure the process of competition to ensure that competitors can challenge the merits of the incumbent, consumers enjoy the fruits of efficiency, and that this technological advancement is not suppressed by artificial barriers, adding that in today’s global economic climate, Prudence is crucial in today’s economic climate.
“If only size or success is considered a crime, and every dominant company is sanctioned without tangible competitive hazards, the law will fail: it will freeze capital formation, punish productivity, and ultimately make the public lose the public it aims to protect,” the NATH judicial official wrote a verdict for Nath.
The case was published in a complaint in May 2010 by Kapoor Glass, who said Schott India, the leading domestic manufacturer of neutral USP-1 borosilicate glass tubes, abused its dominance.
While the CCI directed Director General’s investigation in March 2011 had concluded that Schott India had violent Section 4 of the Competition Act, the Commission by a majority order of March 29, 2012 levied a penalty equal at a rate of 4% of Schott India’s average of three years turnover equivalent to about Rs 5.66 crore and also issued a cease-and-desist order against Schott India from doing any discriminatory practices to any of the converters.
Schott India and Kapoor Glass both challenged the appeals court order, which reiterated its appeal for refusal to supply. However, the compatibles abolished the fine against Schott India and believed that the evidence material did not establish any abuse of dominance.
