Kerala HC rejects CMRL appeal, allows ED to continue probe linked to Pinarayi’s daughter T. Veena

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The View From India Looking at World Affairs from the Indian perspective.

First Day First Show News and reviews from the world of cinema and streaming.

Today's Cache Your download of the top 5 technology stories of the day.

Data Point Decoding the headlines with facts, figures, and numbers

Health Matters Ramya Kannan writes to you on getting to good health, and staying there

The Hindu On Books Books of the week, reviews, excerpts, new titles and features.

The High Court had earlier directed the firm’s officials to appear before the ED under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and to cooperate with the probe. | Photo Credit: R.K. Nithin

The Kerala High Court on Friday (June 5, 2026) dismissed an appeal filed by CMRL and its officials seeking to quash the proceedings that the ED had initiated against them in the monthly pay-off case involving Exalogic Solutions – a now-defunct IT firm owned by Veena T., the daughter of Opposition Leader and former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.

The court held that the ED is not barred from initiating civil action with regard to the case, even without the registration of an FIR or a complaint in the predicate offence. Registration of an FIR is needed only for criminal cases, it held and went on to dismiss the appeal.

The CMRL and its officials had filed an appeal before the High Court over a week ago seeking a stay on the ED’s probe into its financial transactions with Exalogic Solutions. The probe pertained to alleged misappropriation of public funds.

The High Court had earlier directed the firm’s officials to appear before the ED under provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and to cooperate with the probe.

The CMRL had questioned the ED invoking the PMLA against the firm, “even without the registration of an FIR, or a complaint in the predicate offence.”

The ED had submitted that the agency had the right to issue summons to the firm’s officials. It submitted before the High Court that its probe was independent of a probe by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) into the matter.