COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA v. SCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD. .
Discusses competition law principles, natural justice, procedural fairness, and statutory interpretation.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 668
Decision Date: 13-05-2025
List of Laws
The Competition Act, 2002; General Regulations, 2009; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; General Principles of Law
- The Competition Act, 2002: The judgment extensively discusses Section 4, focusing on abuse of dominant position. Section 4(1) states that "no enterprise or group shall abuse its dominant position." Section 4(2) lists ways in which abuse may occur, including imposing unfair or discriminatory conditions (4(2)(a)), limiting production (4(2)(b)), denying market access (4(2)(c)), making contracts subject to supplementary obligations (4(2)(d)), and using dominant position in one market to protect another (4(2)(e)). The court analyzes whether Schott India's actions violated these clauses. Section 19(3) requires consideration of actual or potential effects on competition. Section 19(4) outlines factors for analyzing dominance, including market share, economic power, and barriers to entry. Section 26(1) discusses forming a prima facie opinion. Section 27(b) relates to the deterrence objective in setting penalties. Section 32 empowers the CCI to investigate conduct outside India. Section 36(2) incorporates Code of Civil Procedure guarantees, including the right to examine witnesses. Section 53T provides for statutory appeals. The court also refers to the Preamble, stating the Act aims "to prevent practices having adverse effect on competition". The court interprets Section 4 as not per se prohibiting dominance, but prohibiting the abuse of dominance, requiring both descriptive clause violation and appreciable adverse effect on competition (AAEC).
- General Regulations, 2009: Regulation 41(5) obliges the DG or the CCI to grant an opportunity for cross-examination whenever it is “necessary or expedient”. Regulation 41(2) was amended in January 2024 to insert an explicit proviso stating that where the DG relies on oral evidence, he “shall offer" the opposite party an opportunity to cross-examine.
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 36(2) of the Competition Act incorporates the Code of Civil Procedure's guarantees, including the right to “examine witnesses on oath” and to test them in cross-examination.
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle of natural justice, specifically 'audi alteram partem' (right to be heard), in the context of cross-examination. It emphasizes that evidence adduced against a party must be open to challenge. The court finds that the denial of cross-examination was a procedural defect that vitiated the CCI's order. The judgment also discusses the principle of proportionality in imposing penalties under Section 27 of the Competition Act.
🔒 For Members Only