High Court Deliberates on CMRL Appeal Against ED Investigation
The Kerala High Court has reserved its judgment on an appeal filed by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL), challenging a single-judge decision that refused to terminate the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) probe into the company’s activities. The appeal was heard by a division bench comprising Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and KV Jayakumar, who have directed the ED to maintain the current status quo until June 5, when the verdict is expected to be announced.
CMRL, a Kerala-based public limited company involved in the production of synthetic rutile and other industrial chemicals, has been under scrutiny due to accusations of bribery and money laundering. The primary allegation is that the company made unlawful payments to Exalogic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., a firm owned by Veena Thaikkandiyil, daughter of former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. Despite previous vigilance investigations being dismissed by both vigilance courts and the High Court, the case remains under examination by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) in addition to the ED.
Legal Proceedings and Allegations
CMRL and its officials sought to quash the ED’s investigation through the High Court. Justice TR Ravi, on May 26, rejected their petition, arguing it was premature as the ED had only issued summons at that stage. The judge noted that the SFIO had lodged a complaint against CMRL for offences under the Companies Act, which are considered scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Following the single-judge’s ruling, the ED conducted raids at the residences of former CM Vijayan and his family. CMRL’s appeal highlighted the prolonged nature of the single-judge proceedings, which began in 2024 and remained pending until the recent judgment, delayed due to additional affidavits filed by the ED in 2025.
Arguments Presented in Court
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing CMRL, questioned the legitimacy of the ED’s investigation, arguing that the agency lacked jurisdiction without a formal complaint or FIR for a predicate offence. Luthra contended that merely responding to summonses should not be viewed as non-cooperation.
More Read
On behalf of the ED, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan countered that an FIR is not a prerequisite for initiating an investigation under the PMLA. Sundaresan asserted that the ED is entitled to collect evidence and issue summonses to determine the necessity of further investigation.
Special Counsel for the ED, Zoheb Hossain, further argued that the scope of the PMLA has evolved, allowing inquiries to commence without a pre-registered scheduled offence. He emphasized that the summons issued in April 2024 is no longer relevant due to the elapsed time.
CMRL’s legal team also included advocates M Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C Abraham, and Raja Kannan.
The High Court’s decision on this matter is awaited, with implications for both the legal precedent regarding ED investigations and the involved parties.
