11 Years Later, Supreme Court Affirms Volume-based Discounts Are Allowed under Competition Law

SN Thyagarajan (Bar and Bench) 13 May 2025

Investor Interest

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a decision of the now defunct Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT) which ruled that offering volume-based discounts does not, by itself, amount to discriminatory pricing under the Competition Act, 2002, unless such discounts are applied differently to equivalent transactions.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale held, "The order of the COMPAT is affirmed. A cost of 5 lakh is imposed on Kapoor Glass for prolonged litigation."

A copy of the judgment is yet to be made available.

The verdict was delivered 11 years after the appeal was filed in 2014. The case arose from a complaint filed by Kapoor Glass, a manufacturer of glass ampoules and vials, alleging that a dominant supplier of neutral borosilicate glass tubes was engaging in discriminatory pricing. It was alleged that the supplier extended preferential discounts and commercial terms to its joint venture entity, disadvantaging other downstream buyers in the market.

In 2012, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) found the supplier (Schott Glass) guilty of abusing its dominant position under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 through clauses relating to imposition of unfair pricing and denial of market access. The Commission imposed a fine of Rs5.66 crore and passed a cease-and-desist order.

Schott appealed the decision before the COMPAT, which in a 2014 ruling reversed the CCI’s findings. It was held that volume-based discounts do not automatically qualify as discriminatory unless they are applied unequally to similarly situated buyers in comparable transactions.

“To establish discrimination, there must be differential treatment for equivalent transactions. If a large buyer receives better terms owing to higher volumes, and no other buyer places comparable orders, it does not violate competition law,” the order had stated.

It was also noted that the manufacturer’s joint venture partner accounted for over 30% of its total output and that no other buyer matched such volumes. Thus, the differential treatment was found to be commercially justifiable and not exclusionary.

The COMPAT case turned on the interpretation of Section 4(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Competition Act, which prohibits abuse of dominant position through imposition of unfair or discriminatory pricing. It held, "Price discrimination requires differential treatment in equivalent transactions. Offering discounts based on scale of purchase does not automatically imply unfairness or abuse."

It was further held that the refusal to supply to Kapoor Glass was valid, as the latter had previously used counterfeit branding associated with the manufacturer. There was, therefore, no obligation to continue business relations, particularly where allegations of trademark misuse had been substantiated.

The COMPAT had imposed a fine of Rs1 lakh on Kapoor Glass, which has now been enhanced by the Supreme Court to Rs5 lakh.

Courtesy: Bar & Bench

Comments

User

Investor Interest

SBI and Jana Small Finance Bank Slapped with Rs2.72 Crore Penalty by RBI

Moneylife Digital Team 12 May 2025

Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has imposed a penalty of Rs2.72 crore on State Bank of India (SBI) and Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd for non-compliance with the directions issued by the banking regulator. The highest penalty of Rs1.72 crore...

Investor Interest

Supreme Court Strikes at Builder-Banker-Babu Nexus: Will Reforms Follow?

Sucheta Dalal, 09 May 2025

On 29 April 2025, the Supreme Court of India (SC), issued a landmark order directing the central bureau of investigation (CBI) to register seven preliminary enquiries and set up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe, what it...

Investor Interest

JSW Steel and Bhushan Power & Steel: A Judicial Order To Unscramble Eggs!

Ranganathan V, 09 May 2025

It is difficult to find another instance where a leading corporate that commands a market value of approximately Rs2.5tn (trillion), was censured in calumnious terms by the highest court of the land!

In setting at nought the...

Investor Interest

4 NBFCs Surrender Licenses, RBI Cancels Registration of 1 NBFC and 1 ARC

Moneylife Digital Team 09 May 2025

As many as four non-banking finance companies (NBFCs) have surrendered their registration certificates to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), while the regulator cancelled the registration of one NBFC and an asset reconstruction company...