NCLAT Asks HDFC To Confirm Status Of Penalty Deposit Made By Schlott Glass India After Dissolution By SC Due To Abuse Of Dominant Position

The deposit, made in 2012 pursuant to an order of the erstwhile Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT), was held in the form of a fixed deposit receipt (FDR) as security while Schott Glass challenged findings of the Competition Commission of India (CCI). With the case now conclusively decided in Schott's favor, the company has approached the  appellate tribunal seeking the release of the amount.

A bench comprising Justice Yogesh Khanna and Technical Member Ajai Das Mehrotra noted that the FDR is not traceable in the current registry records. Schott's application identified the Registrar of COMPAT as the original customer in whose name the deposit was made. The Tribunal has now directed the concerned branch of HDFC Bank to submit a certificate specifying who deposited the FDR, when it was deposited, whether it has been renewed, and its present status.

The Tribunal also allowed dasti service of the order to expedite the process.

The matter stems from a 2010 complaint by Kapoor Glass, alleging that Schott Glass, then the leading domestic manufacturer of neutral USP-I borosilicate glass tubing, had abused its dominant position by imposing exclusionary and discriminatory commercial terms.

The CCI had initially found against Schott and imposed a penalty equal at a rate of 4 per cent of Schott India's average of 3 years turnover equivalent to about Rs 5.66 crores and also issued a cease-and-desist order against Schott India from doing any discriminatory practices to any of the converters which was later overturned by COMPAT in 2014.

In May this year, the Supreme Court upheld COMPAT's decision, dismissing appeals filed by both the CCI and Kapoor Glass. The Court held that the rebate schemes and long-term supply agreements offered by Schott were based on objective commercial justifications and applied uniformly to all buyers. It found no evidence of exclusion, market foreclosure, or restriction of output. The Court also emphasized that Indian competition law requires a clear effects-based analysis, which was missing from the CCI's order.

Additionally, the Court held that the CCI's refusal to allow cross-examination of key witnesses was a serious procedural lapse that violated principles of natural justice, especially given that the investigation relied heavily on uncorroborated testimony from rival converters. The proceedings were found to be fatally flawed on both procedural and substantive grounds.

Case Title: Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Competition Commission of India & Anr.

Case Number: Competition App. (AT) No. 91 of 2012