Kochi | CMRL, which is facing an ED probe in connection with its financial dealings with Marxist veteran Pinarayi Vijayan’s daughter and her now-defunct firm, moved the Kerala High Court on Friday against a recent order paving the way for the agency’s investigation.

Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd has challenged the High Court’s May 26 judgment dismissing its plea seeking to quash ED proceedings in connection with financial dealings involving Vijayan’s daughter, Veena T.

On May 26, Justice T R Ravi ruled that the Enforcement Directorate was legally empowered to continue its investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, even before the filing of a formal FIR or final report by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office.

In its appeal, the company contended that the judgment was delivered after being reserved twice, first in 2024 and again in 2025, causing it "grave prejudice".

It also contended that after the judgment was reserved in 2024, the court allowed the ED to file additional affidavits in 2025 despite its objections.

The company further claimed it was not given a subsequent opportunity to respond to the contents of the ED’s additional affidavits.

In those affidavits, the agency stated that the SFIO had filed a complaint in April 2025 alleging offences under the Companies Act, including fraud provisions that qualify as scheduled offences under the PMLA.

The petition stated that there was a grave violation of principles of natural justice, as the appellants (CMRL and its officials) were not heard on the merits of the additional affidavits or on whether a subsequently filed complaint containing a scheduled offence could be used to confer jurisdiction on the ED to investigate under the PMLA when no scheduled offence existed at the time the probe began.

The company has sought to have the High Court’s May 26 judgment set aside and has also requested a stay on its operation until its appeal is decided.

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 since no scheduled offence existed when the probe began.

The case traces back to Income Tax searches conducted in January 2019 at the company’s offices and the residences of senior executives.

Later, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs ordered an investigation by the SFIO into the company’s affairs following a complaint filed by political activist Shone George.