XYZ (Confidential) Vs Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. (Competition Commission of India)
In a recent case brought before the Competition Commission of India (CCI), Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. (“OP-1”) and its parent company, Compagnie De Saint-Gobain (“OP-2”), have been accused of engaging in anti-competitive practices that potentially breach Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The allegations, filed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act, suggest that OP-1’s agreements with processors and distributors may contravene competition laws by imposing exclusive supply obligations, forced co-branding, and resale price maintenance.
1. Allegations and Agreements
The informant, a public-spirited individual, has alleged that OP-1’s agreements, particularly the “Propel Project Participation Agreement” (Propel Agreement), include terms that restrict processors from sourcing glass products from competitors. These agreements purportedly include:
- Exclusive Supply Obligation: Clauses 3.1 and 3.3 of the Propel Agreement mandate that processors source all glass exclusively from OP-1, with termination penalties for non-compliance.
- Forced Co-Branding: Clause 3.3 requires processors to use OP-1’s branding alongside their own, which could impose undue restrictions on their ability to freely market their products.
- Refusal to Deal: Processors dealing with competitors are allegedly denied products from OP-1, potentially stifling competition.
- Resale Price Maintenance: There are claims that OP-1 directly negotiates prices with large customers, compelling processors to issue invoices at these fixed prices.
2. Market and Competitive Context
