Kerala high court reserves order on CMRL plea against ED probe linked to Pinarayi Vijayan's daughter Veena's firm

KOCHI: Kerala high court on Monday reserved for Friday its order in an appeal filed by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) challenging a Single Bench order that allowed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to proceed with its probe into the alleged transactions between the company and Exalogic Solutions, a firm owned by Veena T, daughter of former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan.The Bench of Justice V Raja Vijayaraghavan and K V Jayakumar also directed the ED to maintain the status quo in its proceedings against the appellants—CMRL and its officials—until Friday. The ED’s investigation stems from allegations arising from a report by the Interim Board for Settlement of the Income Tax Department, which stated that CMRL had paid Rs 1.72 crore to Veena's company during the assessment years 2017–18 to 2019–20 and that the payments did not qualify as business expenditure. Based on the report, the ED registered an ECIR and issued summons to CMRL officials, which were challenged by the company in a petition filed in 2024.The company’s case is that the ED lacked jurisdiction to investigate the matter in the absence of a complaint or FIR relating to a scheduled offence that could constitute the predicate offence for proceedings under the PMLA. However, the Single Bench dismissed the petition, holding that the challenge was premature as it was directed against proceedings at the stage of issuance of summons. The Court also noted that the summons merely required a person to appear, state the truth, make statements, and produce documents, and that such proceedings did not require the registration of an FIR.Aggrieved by this finding, the company filed the present appeal. It contended that the ED had commenced its investigation as early as April 2024, before the registration of any scheduled offence and without identifying any proceeds of crime under the Act. Opposing the appeal, Additional Solicitor General A R L Sundaresan submitted that the issuance of summons was only for the purpose of collecting material for initiating proceedings under other relevant provisions of the PMLA and, therefore, could not be quashed.