CMRL’s plea against ED probe: Kerala HC orders status quo after hearing, order on Friday
The Division bench comprising Justice RajaVijayaraghavan and Justice K V Jayakumar held a detailed hearing on the petition challenging the ED probe following which the case was posted for Friday.
The Division bench comprising Justice RajaVijayaraghavan and Justice K V Jayakumar held a detailed hearing on the petition challenging the ED probe following which the case was posted for Friday.
The Division bench comprising Justice RajaVijayaraghavan and Justice K V Jayakumar held a detailed hearing on the petition challenging the ED probe following which the case was posted for Friday.
The Kerala High Court Division Bench, on Monday, directed the parties to maintain status quo after holding the final hearing on Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited’s (CMRL) appeal challenging the ED’s probe into the CMRL pay-off case. The case has been posted for orders on Friday.
The Division bench comprising Justice RajaVijayaraghavan and Justice K V Jayakumar held a detailed hearing on the petition challenging the ED probe following which the case was posted for Friday.
The investigation concerns fictitious cash expenses totalling ₹182 crore over 15 years, allegedly used to bribe various individuals.
The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) filed a prosecution complaint on April 3, 2025, against 12 individuals, including former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s daughter, Veena, before the Additional Sessions Court-VII, Ernakulam, alleging corporate fraud, including offences scheduled under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
CMRL reportedly made payments totalling ₹2.78 crore to Veena Vijayan and her IT firm, Exalogic Solutions Private Limited. Additionally, N Sasidharan Kartha, Managing Director of CMRL, and his son, Saran S Kartha, allegedly received ₹30.63 crore in cumulative remuneration from FY 2015-16 to FY 2022-23 despite the absence of dividend payments.
On May 26, a Single Bench of the High Court dismissed CMRL’s plea to quash the ED’s Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and related summonses issued under the PMLA. The court held that the initiation of a PMLA investigation is valid and does not require a "predicate offence" at the time of initiation. It also noted that a "predicate offence "existed as of the date of the judgment, as the SFIO had already filed its prosecution complaint containing PMLA-scheduled offences.
A day after the Single Bench verdict, officials conducted raids at around 10 locations linked to the case, including the residences of Pinarayi Vijayan, Veena and senior CMRL executives. Investigating agencies allege that the payments were made without corresponding services being rendered, claims denied by all concerned parties.
On May 29, CMRL approached the Division Bench of the High Court against the Single Bench verdict upholding the ED’s jurisdiction in the case.