904-NMS-1220-15-F4.DOC that as a ‘complete’ answer. Indeed it is not. And this is telling: for at least now, after the suit was filed, the NSE had the undeniable opportunity to deal with the technical aspects. It has chosen not to do so, and the reasons that suggest themselves are, in my estimation, and I expect in the estimation of any rational-minded person who went through this carefully, precisely those that Ms. Dalal outlined in her articles. It is certainly not insignificant that the letter in question outlines a typical instance with figures of how these advantages can be obtained. 13. Mr. Tulzapurkar first relies on a very old decision of a Single Judge of this Court in Mitha Rustomji Murzban v. Nusserwanji Nowroji Engineer.5 That was also an action in damages, partly in libel and partly in slander. It related to an article in a weekly journal in Gujarati. Wadia J held that even if there is criticism in the press it must be fair and while it may not be necessary to prove malice by the defendant, the test must be this: whether any reasonable person, however prejudiced or however strong of opinion, could say that the work in question was a fair comment. Even allowing latitude for personal opinion and individual prejudice, the test must be that of a reasonable, and I would suggest in this particular case, a knowledgeable person, in such matters. Mere boldness or strength of expression, or even exaggeration does not per se make a comment unfair. If a reasonable person would not have been moved to draw the conclusions or make the statements that the Defendants have made, then the NSE must succeed. This test applies to every comment including an imputation as to character, conduct or professional behaviour. Newspapers are no exception. They have no 5 AIR 1941 Bom 278 12 of 30 ::: Uploaded on - 10/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2020 18:08:37 :::