I 4 KNOWLEDGE PROCESSING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. Swati Soparkar, learned advocate for the petitioner has tendered additional affidavit dated 16.6.2016, which is taken on record.

(2.) This Is A Petition Filed Under Sections 100 To 103 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking confirmation to the scheme of capital reduction of the Company.

(3.) The Petitioner Company Was Incorporated On 11Th May 2007 under the name and style of Eagle Creek Property Developers Private Limited. The name was of the Company was changed to Eagle Creek Knowledge Processing Services Private Limited vide fresh certificate dated 7th May 2008. It was further changed to I 4 Knowledge Processing Private Limited vide the fresh certificate dated 19th October 2015 issued by the Registrar of Companies, Gujarat. The petitioner company was incorporated with the objective to provide knowledge based services and support mainly to the financial industry in the United States. The services include skilled support to Financial Advisory firms for middle office and back office tasks, CPA firms for book keeping, tax planning and tax preparatory work etc. The Company proposed expansion and diversification plans to establish independent support centre for Insurance companies, providing skilled support for preparation of life expectancy illustrations and APS summaries. For the purpose, the company invited capital in form of Preference Shares from some Foreign Investors in the year 200910. The project was to service large number of insurance companies in the US with creating state of an art infrastructure to accommodate about 400 500 skilled people to deliver such tasks. However, considering the global slowdown and particularly economic crisis in US subprime sector, the said project was not viable and hence abandoned. The preference share capital which was invited specifically for the said project from the US based investors viz. Eagle Creek Fund LLC, Strategic Insurance Marketing Solution and Jose Dorothy Hong Farm Partnership, remained unutilized since the petitioner company does not envisage the said project to be implemented even in the future. The Capital so invested by US based investors being in excess of the requirements of the Company, it was resolved by the Board of Directors of the Company to return such excess capital in trenches.