U.C.Law, J. - (1.) This is a suit for a declaration that the decision and resolution of the defendant association and/or its Committee dated 1st April 1948 is void and of no legal effect and does not bind the plaintiff in any way and also for an injunction restraining the defendant association, their servants and agents from enforcing or giving effect to the said decision and resolution in any way. The case made out in the plaint is as follows:
(2.) The plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 are members of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. (the defendant No. 2) to be referred to hereafter as the said association. The plaintiff's case is that on 24 November 1943 Sri Gopal Jalan a member of the plaintiff firm in his individual capacity sold 4,000 shares in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. to the defendant No. 1 at Rs. 35/12/- per share and a further 4,000 shares in the said company at Rs. 35/11/-per share. On 19th March 1944 out of the said 8,000 shares Sri Gopal Jalan bought back 6,000 shares at Rs. 38/6/- per share and the remaining 2,000 shares at Rs. 38/11/- per share. Thereafter on 18th March 1944 the plaintiff firm sent a letter to the defendant association intimating that it was stopping business from that date and giving notice that any member of the association doing business with any of the members of the plaintiff firm would do so at his own risk until further notice to the contrary, and requested the Secretary of the defendant association to put up the said letter on the notice board for the information of members. In paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the plaint certain other transactions in different shares with the defendant No. 1 are mentioned and it is stated that all these transactions were also entered into by Sri Gopal Jalan in his personal capacity and the plaintiff firm was in no way concerned with them. By its letter dated 18th February 1946 the defendant No. 1 filed a complaint with the Secretary of the defendant association claiming Rs. 21,885/- and Rs. 5,150/ for difference from the plaintiff in respect or the transactions mentioned hereinbefore and requested the defendant association to take steps for the immediate realisation of its dues with interest. Copies of two original bills and a cheque for Rs. 16/- as committee fee was enclosed with this letter. On 27th February 1946 the plaintiff wrote to the Secretary of the defendant association stating that there was no transaction between the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff in their records,--these transactions were the personal private transactions of Sri Gopal Jalan with which the defendant association could not deal. On 27th May 1947 the plaintiff wrote to the Secretary of the defendant association requesting that Sagarmal Nathuni one of the members of the defendant association should not sit on the sub-committee to be constituted for decision of the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1, as he was on bad terms with the members of the plaintiff firm. On 16th March 1948 the sub-committee of the defendant association disallowed the claim of the defendant No. 1 against the plaintiff and the next day communicated the said decision to the parties. On 23rd March 1948 the defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal against the said decision of the subcommittee dated 16th March 1948. On 1st April 1948 the committee of the defendant association allowed the appeal of the defendant No. 1 and set aside the order of the sub-committee dated 16th March 1948. This decision was also duly communicated to the parties the next day the 2nd of April 1948. The plaintiff states that the decision of the 1st April 1948 is illegal, invalid and not binding on the following grounds:-- (a) Sagarmal Nathuni should not have sat on the committee which purported to allow the appeal of the defendant No. 1 as he was a very influential person and the other members of the committee were considerably influenced by him in their decision. (b) The defendant association did not give any hearing to the plaintiff before making its decision. (c) The defendant association acted with bias and partiality. (d) The decisions dated 1st April were not given honestly and in good faith or in conformity with the principle of natural justice. (e) The defendant association had no jurisdiction to decide dispute which was not one between the members of the said association but which was personal and private affair of the said Sri Gopal Jalan.
(3.) Upon these facts the plaintiff has brought this action for declaration and injunction as stated before.;