https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98582 Rule 7 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was treated as conferring power to extend time fixed by a court order even after expiry, and a consent order was not excluded from that power merely because it was self-operative on default. Estoppel failed because the consent terms contained no representation that extension would never be sought and no prejudice from the short delay was shown. In winding-up proceedings, the court could exercise discretion in the company's favour where the default was promptly cured, the balance due was offered, and no legal prejudice to the creditor was established. en-us Mon, 13 Jan 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:19:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98582 Rule 7 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was treated as conferring power to extend time fixed by a court order even after expiry, and a consent order was not excluded from that power merely because it was self-operative on default. Estoppel failed because the consent terms contained no representation that extension would never be sought and no prejudice from the short delay was shown. In winding-up proceedings, the court could exercise discretion in the company's favour where the default was promptly cured, the balance due was offered, and no legal prejudice to the creditor was established. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 13 Jan 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98582