is no relief claimed in the original petition in respect of the EOGM held by the company for increase in its authorised share capital. Be that as it may, the main contention advanced before the CLB, as reflected in the impugned order, seems to be not making of a proper offer by the first Respondent company to the original Petitioner. As far as the offer made to the original Petitioner is concerned, the CLB found, as a matter of fact, that there were notices issued at the registered address of the original Petitioner available with the company; that when such notices were returned with the remark “left”, a communication was addressed by the company to the Appellant herein reiterating such offer. In any event, it transpires from the record of the case that even by way of an ad-interim order passed by the CLB on 20 March 2009, an option was made available to the original Petitioner / her predecessor to subscribe to the shares offered, but that the Petitioner / her predecessor never accepted this offer. Even today before this Court, it is not the Appellant's case that he was ready to subscribe to the shares offered by the first Respondent company. On these facts, the conclusion of the CLB that there was a diligent offer by the company to the original Petitioner, cannot be faulted on any legal ground. No question of law arises with this part of the impugned order.
