The Supreme Court of India, in the case Competition Commission of India v. Schott Glass India, cautioned against "heavy-handed enforcement" of competition law, asserting that such an approach could hinder India’s ambition to become a global hub for manufacturing and technology. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale ruled that regulation should reward scale and only intervene where actual competitive harm is evident. The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and Kapoor Glass against Schott Glass India, emphasizing that dominance in the market is not unlawful unless it results in appreciable adverse effects on competition (AAEC). It reinforced that Section 4 of the Competition Act targets the abuse of dominance, not dominance itself, and warned that penalizing success could deter capital formation, productivity, and technical growth essential for national development.

The case stemmed from a 2010 complaint by Kapoor Glass accusing Schott India of exclusionary discounts, tying arrangements, and supply refusal. CCI had found Schott in violation and imposed a penalty, but the decision was overturned by COMPAT in 2014 due to procedural lapses and lack of proven market harm. The Supreme Court upheld COMPAT’s findings, providing constitutional and economic rationale for a restrained, effects-based application of antitrust law. It warned that aggressive enforcement without clear evidence of market distortion could drive away investment and innovation. The legal teams representing all parties were composed of senior advocates and experienced counsel, highlighting the importance of the case in shaping future competition law jurisprudence in India.