{"id":8907,"date":"2007-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007"},"modified":"2017-07-22T06:07:19","modified_gmt":"2017-07-22T00:37:19","slug":"k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"K.J.Mathew vs Hindustan News Print Ltd on 3 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.J.Mathew vs Hindustan News Print Ltd on 3 December, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA No. 2864 of 2007()\n\n\n1. K.J.MATHEW, KUNNEAL HOUSE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LTD.,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE GENERAL MANAGER(WORKS),\n\n3. M\/S GLASS FIBRESS , KRISHNA NIVAS,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :03\/12\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                         H.L. DATTU, CJ. & K.M. JOSEPH, J.\n                       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                          WRIT APPEAL No.2864 of 2007\n                       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                     Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2007.\n\n                                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
K.M.JOSEPH,J,<\/p>\n
               The third respondent in the writ petition is the appellant before us.<\/p>\n
The writ petition was filed by the third respondent in the present appeal challenging<\/p>\n
the award of the work of Newsprint Handling pursuant to the notification by<\/p>\n
respondents 1 and 2 in favour of the appellant. Two grounds were taken as can be<\/p>\n
seen on a perusal of the judgment in the writ petition. The first ground was that the<\/p>\n
appellant was not pre-qualified to participate in the tender. The further contention<\/p>\n
by the writ petitioner was that the appellant had corrected the rates in the tender.<\/p>\n
Learned Single has found favour with the first contention, namely that the appellant<\/p>\n
was not pre-qualified to participate in the                 tender.       For arriving at the said<\/p>\n
conclusion, the learned Single Judge has relied on the stand of the first respondent<\/p>\n
Company itself.     The stand of the Company in relation to the question as to<\/p>\n
whether the petitioner was pre-qualified has been extracted in the judgment and<\/p>\n
we also refer it in our judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                        “With regard to the averments contained in Grounds<\/p>\n
       A, B and C of the writ petition, it is submitted that they are devoid of<\/p>\n
       any merit, and hence denied. The averments in Ground A that the<\/p>\n
       3rd respondent did not qualify any of the criteria specified in Ext.P2 is<\/p>\n
       factually incorrect.        While one of the pre-qualification criteria<\/p>\n
       prescribed in the tender document was that the tenderers should<\/p>\n
       have successfully completed three labour oriented works contracts of<\/p>\n
       annual value not less that 40% of the annual PAC (59.15 lakh) during<\/p>\n
       any of the preceding seven years from 31.3.2007, it was found that<\/p>\n
       the 3rd respondent had completed work of the said nature, subject to<\/p>\n
WA.2864\/2007.                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
       a marginal deficit of Rs.70,000\/- in the 3rd work during the stipulated<\/p>\n
       period.    When the respondent Company sought clarification from its<\/p>\n
       internal audit department as to whether the third respondent could be<\/p>\n
       deemed to have complied with the pre-qualification criteria for the worK,<\/p>\n
       the internal audit department clarified that in view of the works undertaken<\/p>\n
       by the 3rd respondent in the past, and also considering the fact that the<\/p>\n
       deficit in the last work was only Rs.70,000\/-, when compared to the total<\/p>\n
       value of the works undertaken, his bid could also be considered for the<\/p>\n
       purpose of awarding the work.        This suggestion of the internal audit<\/p>\n
       department was accepted by the Managing Director of the respondent<\/p>\n
       Company and, accordingly, his bid also was considered along with those<\/p>\n
       of the other three tenderers, who were qualified under the tender<\/p>\n
       conditions.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thus the finding of the learned Single Judge would appear to be that the appellant was<\/p>\n
not pre-qualified for the reason that the appellant had, though executed three works<\/p>\n
within the preceding seven years from 31.3.2007, in respect of one of the works the<\/p>\n
value fell short of the prescribed limit by Rs.70,000\/-. In the light of this finding, the<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge found it not necessary to go into the second contention as to the<\/p>\n
alleged subsequent correction by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
               2. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. B. Gopakumar would contend<\/p>\n
that by Ext.R3(b) dated 20.10.2007 the appellant came to be pre-qualified. Tender of<\/p>\n
the appellant was the lowest. He would contend that the actual complaint of the writ<\/p>\n
petitioner was regarding the alleged subsequent correction made by the appellant,<\/p>\n
which was by reducing the rate from Rs.18\/- to Rs.16\/-. He would submit that the<\/p>\n
question relating to the pre-qualification was never contended before the learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge and yet the learned Single Judge has proceeded to find that the appellant was<\/p>\n
not pre-qualified. He would further point out with reference to the relevant clause that<\/p>\n
having regard to the value of the three works which he had executed, the Company has<\/p>\n
WA.2864\/2007.                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
taken the view that he must be treated as pre-qualified and it was a view which should<\/p>\n
have commended itself for the acceptance of the learned Single Judge. He would<\/p>\n
commend the view taken by the Company for our acceptance. We extract the clause<\/p>\n
relied on as hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
                       “(c) Tenderers should have successfully completed three<\/p>\n
       labour oriented works contract of annual value not less than 40% of the<\/p>\n
       annual PAC (59.15 lakhs) during any of the preceding 7 years from<\/p>\n
       31.3.2007.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
He would further contend that the writ petitioner did not really challenge the right of the<\/p>\n
third respondent to be pre-qualified. He would further contend that the tender of the<\/p>\n
appellant was the lowest and the first respondent being a Public Sector Company would<\/p>\n
lose several lakhs of rupees if the appellant’s pre-qualification is interfered with and the<\/p>\n
work is awarded to the writ petitioner. He would further submit that it is the settled view<\/p>\n
of the courts that the courts should not interfere with the awarding of work.<\/p>\n
               3. As far as the contention that the question whether the appellant was<\/p>\n
pre-qualified was not an issue before the learned Single Judge is concerned, we are of<\/p>\n
the view that the writ petitioner had      called in question the pre-qualification of the<\/p>\n
appellant. This is clear from Ground A. Ground A is extracted hereunder:<\/p>\n
                       “A.   There are four alternative pre-qualification criteria<\/p>\n
       stipulated in Ext.P2 for a person to participate in the Tender. The said<\/p>\n
       pre-qualification criteria are mandatory. The third respondent did not<\/p>\n
       qualify any of the said criteria in Ext.P2. Hence the 3rd respondent is not<\/p>\n
       fit and entitled to participate in the Tender and his tender is liable to be<\/p>\n
       rejected.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
WA.2864\/2007.                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
It is further pointed out by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner that<\/p>\n
in Ext.P5 dated 23.10.2007 the writ petitioner had specifically pointed out that the<\/p>\n
appellant is not pre-qualified for participating in the tender as per the pre-qualification<\/p>\n
criteria.\n<\/p>\n
                 4. We notice that the learned Single Judge had indeed before him two<\/p>\n
issues projected by the writ petitioner, namely whether the appellant was pre-qualfiied<\/p>\n
and as to whether there was subsequent correction by the appellant. The learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge, as already stated, had found that the appellant was not pre-qualified.<\/p>\n
Therefore, we reject the contention of the appellant that the issue relating to the pre-<\/p>\n
qualification was not present before the learned Single Judge.<\/p>\n
                 5. The further question to be decided in this case is whether the view<\/p>\n
taken by the learned Single Judge that the appellant was not pre-qualified requires to be<\/p>\n
interfered with. We would think that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in<\/p>\n
finding that the appellant was not pre-qualified. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly<\/p>\n
submits that he claims the right to be pre-qualified only under the third alternate clause,<\/p>\n
which we have extracted.           We would think that the third alternate clause indeed<\/p>\n
mandates that the tenderers should have successfully completed three labour oriented<\/p>\n
works contract, each having a value equivalent to 40% of the annual PAC. Though the<\/p>\n
appellant has executed three works, in respect of one of the works, he fell short by<\/p>\n
Rs.70,000\/-.       It is evident on a perusal of the clause in question that the employer<\/p>\n
contemplated that the contractor should have executed three labour oriented works,<\/p>\n
each having a value of 40% of the PAC. We would think that no other view is possible.<\/p>\n
If that be so, it is clear that the appellant was not eligible to be pre-qualified and that has<\/p>\n
been found by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge thereafter has<\/p>\n
quashed the award of contract to the appellant and directed respondents 1 and 2 to<\/p>\n
WA.2864\/2007.                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. We find that there is no merit in this<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
             Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
             Consequently, I.A. No.968 of 2007 is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                           H.L. DATTU,
\n                                                         CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                                          K.M. JOSEPH,
\n                                                             JUDGE<\/p>\n
sb.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.J.Mathew vs Hindustan News Print Ltd on 3 December, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA No. 2864 of 2007() 1. K.J.MATHEW, KUNNEAL HOUSE, … Petitioner Vs 1. HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LTD., … Respondent 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER(WORKS), 3. M\/S GLASS FIBRESS , KRISHNA NIVAS, For Petitioner :SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR For […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8907","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.J.Mathew vs Hindustan News Print Ltd on 3 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.J.Mathew vs Hindustan News Print Ltd on 3 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-22T00:37:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.J.Mathew vs Hindustan News Print Ltd on 3 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-22T00:37:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1311,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007\",\"name\":\"K.J.Mathew vs Hindustan News Print Ltd on 3 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-22T00:37:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.J.Mathew vs Hindustan News Print Ltd on 3 December, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.J.Mathew vs Hindustan News Print Ltd on 3 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.J.Mathew vs Hindustan News Print Ltd on 3 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-22T00:37:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.J.Mathew vs Hindustan News Print Ltd on 3 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-22T00:37:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007"},"wordCount":1311,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007","name":"K.J.Mathew vs Hindustan News Print Ltd on 3 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-22T00:37:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-mathew-vs-hindustan-news-print-ltd-on-3-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.J.Mathew vs Hindustan News Print Ltd on 3 December, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8907","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8907"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8907\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8907"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8907"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8907"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}