Consequence of transaction in breach of court order

It is well settled principle of law that an authority proceeding with any matter after the prohibitory order passed by the Competent Court, has to be seriously viewed and the parties should be put back to the original position as no one can be permitted to enjoy the fruits of any order which was passed in contravention to the stay order. The said principle is fully explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2010 (4) SC 519 Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs v. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs.)

See also: 
2011(3)CTC46 (Madras)
AIR 1967 SC 1386
 AIR 1996 SC 135
AIR 2007 SC 1386

fraudulent conduct of business - mens rea

Application under Section 542/543 of the Companies Act, 1956 for fraudulent conduct of business - such allegation which is criminal nature in nature, it is necessary to prove that such an allegation which is criminal in nature, it is necessary to specifically plead and prove, and mens rea is required.
OL v. V. Selvaraj (Madras) SCL (mag) 56

Fraud and Contract

Fraud which vitiates the contract must have a nexus with the acts of the parties prior to entering into the contract.
(2006) 13 SCC 599, Reliance Salt Ltd v. Cosmos Enterprises 

Fraud on Court, in pari delicto

Satpal Singh Arora v. Santdas Prabhudas Malkani, (1970) 73 BLR 777 (relevant page 789 of the judgement) which, inter alia, holds that if in a Suit it is established that both the parties intended to play fraud upon law to circumvent its provisions, the maxim in pari delicto, potior est condition defendatis, i.e. where both parties are equally at fault, the position of the Defendant is stronger, will apply.

 S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath 1994 (1) SCC 1 (relevant paragraphs 5 & 6), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if a Plaintiff's case is based on fraud he can be thrown out at any stage.