SANJIB BANERJEE, J. - (1.) The suit is in the form of a derivative action complaining of alleged illegalities perpetrated on the first defendant company by those at present in control thereof. In the classical derivative action, the plaintiff does not seek any personal relief save the indirect consequence as a member of the company after the company is rid of the illegality complained of. In such form of action, the eo nomine plaintiff sues for and on behalf of all shareholders of the company except the recalcitrant defendants and the benefit of the relief, when granted, is enjoyed by the company and, through it, by all its members.
(2.) The plaintiff has instituted the action with leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent and has sought the following reliefs for the ultimate benefit of the company: "a) A scheme be framed for the management and administration of Bengal Brick Field Owners' Association having its registered office at 23A, Netaji Subhas Road, 3rd Floor, Kolkata 700001; b) Declaration that the amendments to the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association of the Bengal Brick Field Owners' Association carried out on 18th August, 2007 are illegal, null and void; c) Declaration that all resolutions passed in the meeting of 18th August, 2007 with regard to the amendment of the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association of Bengal Brick Field Owners' Association are illegal and null and void; d) Declaration that the notice dated 18th June, 2008 is illegal, null and void; e) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their servants and agents from holding the 64th Annual General Meeting of the Association on 21st July, 2008 in terms of the notice dated 18th June, 2008; f) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their servants and agents from taking any steps or any further steps on the basis of the notice dated 18th June, 2008 for holding of the 64th Annual General Meeting on 21st July, 2008; g) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos.2 to 13 from representing themselves or holding themselves out as Office Bearers of the Association; h) Declaration that the defendant Nos.2 to 13 are not Office Bearers of the Association; i) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos.2 to 13 from interfering with in any manner in the management and administration of the Association; j) Receiver; k) Injunction; l) Attachment before judgement; m) Costs; n) Further or other reliefs."
(3.) The principal challenge in the suit and in the plaintiff's interlocutory application is to an extraordinary general meeting of the company held on August 18, 2007 and an annual general meeting of the company which, at the time of the institution of the suit, had been convened to be held on July 21, 2008.;