CMRL moves Kerala HC against order refusing to quash ED probe

Kochi: Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) has filed an appeal before the high court division bench against the single bench’s order dismissing its petition challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s probe into alleged financial transactions between the company and Exalogic Solutions, a firm owned by T Veena, daughter of former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan.

The bench of Justices V Raja Vijayaraghavan and K V Jayakumar will consider the appeal on Monday. The company preferred a swift appeal on the ground that the ED had intensified its actions in the case by conducting a series of raids at the offices of CMRL, the residences of Pinarayi Vijayan in Kannur and Thiruvananthapuram, and the residence of his son-in-law P A Muhammed Riyas, among others.

The company, in its 2024 petition, had argued that ED could initiate proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) only on the basis of a valid FIR or complaint relating to a predicate offence recognised as a scheduled offence under the Act. On May 26, the single bench dismissed the petition, prompting the company to prefer an appeal.

In its appeal, CMRL stated that after the petition had been reserved for orders by the single bench on Aug 7, 2024, the ED filed three additional affidavits on various dates in 2025. The affidavit filed on May 21, 2025, referred to a complaint registered by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) on April 3, 2025, constituting a scheduled offence against CMRL officials under the PMLA. Further, the matter was heard by the bench and was again reserved for orders on Oct 10, 2025. CMRL claimed that during hearing, it had strongly objected to the consideration of additional affidavits after the matter had been reserved for judgment, arguing that such a course was legally impermissible.

The appeal also contended that the company had not been heard on the merits of the additional affidavits and allegations, which amounted to a grave violation of the principles of natural justice. Similarly, CMRL argued that it had been denied an opportunity to address the merits of the SFIO complaint, particularly concerning the Delhi HC order directing the SFIO not to proceed with the case. The company further contended that the nearly two-year delay in pronouncing the judgment after reserving the matter had caused serious prejudice, as the single judge later held the investigation to be permissible based on the SFIO complaint filed on April 3, 2025, even though the company argued that the probe lacked jurisdiction from the outset.