The Kerala High Court is reviewing CMRL's appeal against the Enforcement Directorate's money laundering investigation involving Veena T, daughter of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, raising questions about the ED's jurisdiction and the fairness of the proceedings.
Key Points
- Kerala High Court admitted CMRL's appeal against the ED's money laundering investigation involving Veena T.
- The Enforcement Directorate has agreed to refrain from any action until the court's judgment on June 5.
- CMRL argues the ED's investigation is prejudicial and violates principles of natural justice.
- The case originates from Income Tax searches and a subsequent SFIO complaint alleging fraud.
- CMRL seeks to quash the ED's case and related proceedings, claiming the agency lacked jurisdiction.
The Kerala High Court on Monday admitted an appeal filed by CMRL against a single-judge verdict that allowed the ED to continue its money laundering investigation into the company's financial dealings with Veena T, daughter of former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan and Justice K V Jayakumar heard the matter and posted it for judgment on June 5.
ED's Stance and Court Proceedings
The Enforcement Directorate told the High Court that it would refrain from taking any precipitative action in connection with the matter until June 5, when the appeal is scheduled for judgment.
CMRL's Challenge and Allegations
Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd challenged the May 26 single-judge verdict, which held that the ED could proceed with its investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act even before the Serious Fraud Investigation Office filed a formal FIR or final report.
In its appeal, CMRL argued that the judgment caused it prejudice, stating that the case had been reserved for orders twice, in 2024 and 2025.
The company also alleged that the ED was allowed to file additional affidavits after the matter was reserved and that it was not given an opportunity to respond to them.
SFIO Complaint and Natural Justice
The additional affidavits referred to an SFIO complaint filed in April 2025, alleging offences under the Companies Act, including fraud-related provisions that qualify as scheduled offences under the PMLA.
CMRL contended that it was denied a hearing on whether the later SFIO complaint could be used to justify an ED investigation that had begun when no scheduled offence existed.
It claimed this amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
The company has sought to set aside the May 26 judgment and stay its operation pending disposal of the appeal.
Background of the Case
Following the single-judge order, the ED on May 27 conducted searches at the residences of former CM Vijayan and others as part of its investigation into the CMRL money laundering case involving his daughter.
CMRL had earlier approached the High Court seeking to quash the ED's Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), summons issued to its officials, and related proceedings, arguing that the agency lacked jurisdiction when the probe was initiated.
The case stems from Income Tax searches conducted at the company's offices and the residences of its senior executives in January 2019.
It was later investigated by the SFIO following a complaint filed by BJP leader Shone George.
© 2026