https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794492 In proceedings under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Tribunal's wide remedial power is not confined by the consent proviso in Section 242(2)(f) where the pleaded case is that transactions are fraudulent, sham, or void; consent was therefore not a condition precedent. The earlier order allowing collapse only where consent already existed did not create a universal consent requirement. Detailed pleadings supported by RBI, SFIO and forensic material alleging circuitous routing of funds required merits examination. The application was also not barred by election, estoppel, or approbate and reprobate merely because separate Section 7 proceedings had been pursued. en-us Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jul 2026 08:39:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794492 In proceedings under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Tribunal's wide remedial power is not confined by the consent proviso in Section 242(2)(f) where the pleaded case is that transactions are fraudulent, sham, or void; consent was therefore not a condition precedent. The earlier order allowing collapse only where consent already existed did not create a universal consent requirement. Detailed pleadings supported by RBI, SFIO and forensic material alleging circuitous routing of funds required merits examination. The application was also not barred by election, estoppel, or approbate and reprobate merely because separate Section 7 proceedings had been pursued. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794492