Late proof of claim in liquidation does not forfeit the debt; it only limits participation in prior distributions.

The liquidation notice period may be enlarged where the circumstances are fit and proper, and notice given later can still be treated as valid. Failure to lodge a claim within the notice period does not extinguish the debt or bar the creditor from later proving it before the liquidator. The statutory effect is limited to exclusion from distributions already made before proof of the claim, and the creditor is not required to file a special-leave suit merely because the notice period has expired. The claim must still be received and dealt with according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the time for giving notice under the liquidation provisions could be extended despite alleged non-compliance with the statutory period; (ii) Whether failure to lodge a claim within the time stated in the notice barred the creditor from later proving the claim or compelled resort to a suit with special leave.

Issue (i): Whether the time for giving notice under the liquidation provisions could be extended despite alleged non-compliance with the statutory period.

Analysis: The notice requirement was treated as capable of extension where the circumstances were fit and proper. The Court accepted that, even assuming such notice was necessary, the case justified enlargement of time to the date on which notice had in fact been given.

Conclusion: The time was validly extended.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to lodge a claim within the time stated in the notice barred the creditor from later proving the claim or compelled resort to a suit with special leave.

Analysis: The Court held that omission to come forward within the notice period did not extinguish the debt or prevent the claimant from later proving it. The statutory consequence was limited to exclusion from distributions made before proof of the debt. The creditor could still have the claim entertained by the liquidator and dealt with according to law, and a special-leave suit was not required merely because the notice period had expired.

Conclusion: The claimant was not barred from later proving the claim, and the liquidator had to entertain it.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the petition was set aside, the claim was directed to be received by the liquidator, and the appeal succeeded on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A creditor's failure to prove within the notice period in liquidation does not forfeit the claim; it only postpones participation so that the creditor cannot disturb distributions already made before proof.

---