NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday confirmed that a complaint had been filed against Cochin Minerals and Rutiles Limited (CMRL) despite an earlier verbal assurance from the Central government that no such complaint would be lodged while a petition against the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) probe remained pending.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, who had previously heard the plea challenging the SFIO’s inquiry into the affairs of CMRL, Exalogic Solutions Private Limited (owned by T Veena, daughter of Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan), and others, noted this clarification in court.
The case has stirred controversy since December last year, when a coordinate bench of the High Court reserved its order in CMRL’s plea.
However, following the transfer of the judge in March, the matter was reassigned and came up again before Justice Girish Kathpalia.
On 9 April, a complaint was filed against CMRL, its senior management, Veena T, and her firm Exalogic.
This triggered objections from CMRL’s legal team, who said that there had been an informal understanding between both parties that no complaint would be filed while the case was still under consideration.
They stressed that although the investigation could continue, the filing of a formal complaint should have been withheld. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG), however, firmly denied any such understanding.
Due to the disagreement over this claim, Justice Kathpalia referred the matter to Justice Prasad, as the original oral agreement was reportedly made before him.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Prasad remarked that the Supreme Court has often advised against relying on verbal arrangements, insisting they should be formally recorded. Nonetheless, he said courts do sometimes go by the word of the lawyers involved.
He recalled clearly that a verbal promise had indeed been made in his court, specifically that the probe would continue, but no complaint would be filed until the petition was resolved.
“I remember very clearly that such an understanding was given, and it was a definite assurance,” the judge said in court.
The judge further questioned the Central government’s representative, ASG Chetan Sharma, about why the complaint was filed despite that commitment.
He asked, “The Kerala High Court has now temporarily stayed the complaint. But why was it filed at all if an understanding was already given in my court not to proceed with a complaint until this petition was decided?”
However, Justice Prasad said that since the matter is now being looked at by the Kerala High Court, the Delhi High Court would refrain from making any observations on the substance of the complaint, so as not to interfere with proceedings elsewhere.
The Kerala High Court, in an interim order passed on 16 April, directed all parties to maintain status quo for two months on the SFIO report, following a petition from CMRL challenging the Special Court’s decision to take cognisance of the investigation findings.
Justice Prasad concluded that while he could not comment on the pending case in Kerala, he would officially record that the complaint had been filed despite a verbal commitment to the contrary.
He noted, “The only reason the matter was sent back to me was to clarify whether such an understanding existed and I confirm that it did.”
He then directed that the case be returned to the appropriate roster bench. “Subject to orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, list the matter before the roster bench,” the court ordered.
The controversy stems from the SFIO’s findings, which allege that CMRL committed fraud amounting to Rs 197.7 crore. The report accuses the company of making payments to Chief Minister Vijayan’s daughter Veena T, her firm Exalogic, and other political figures to ensure smooth business operations.
It further claims that the payments to Veena T were allegedly fictitious and made under the pretext of securing IT and marketing consultancy services.
Based on the SFIO report, a Special Court in Ernakulam took cognisance of offences under several sections of the Companies Act, including Sections 129(7), 134(8), 447, 448 read with 447.