The Delhi High Court has clarified that a complaint was filed against Cochin Minerals and Rutiles Limited (CMRL) despite an earlier verbal assurance from the Centre. This assurance indicated that while the investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) would proceed, no official complaint would be lodged until the ongoing legal petition was resolved.
The clarification came during a hearing led by Justice Subramonium Prasad, where the Court was reviewing a plea against the SFIO probe. The petition also involves Exalogic Solutions Private Limited, owned by T. Veena, the daughter of Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, along with other related parties.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Quashes Order Stopping Fox Mandal & Associates from Using 'FoxMandal' Trademark
"I candidly remember that there was a clear oral understanding between the parties," Justice Prasad said.
"An assurance was given for sure that no complaint will be filed pending the petition."
The issue emerged after a coordinate bench had reserved its judgment in December last year. However, due to the transfer of the judge in March, the matter was reassigned. The dispute came to the forefront on April 9, when a formal complaint was filed against CMRL, its top officials, T. Veena, and Exalogic Solutions.
CMRL's legal team argued that there had been a mutual oral agreement that while the investigation may continue, no formal complaint would be filed until the court resolved the case. This claim, however, was strongly opposed by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma.
Justice Girish Kathpalia, upon learning that the oral assurance was initially discussed before Justice Prasad, redirected the matter to him. Justice Prasad emphasized that though oral assurances may not be ideal, courts sometimes rely on the word of counsels.
"My difficulty is, why was the complaint filed when an understanding was given to this Court that the investigation may continue but no complaint will be filed pending this petition?"
— Justice Subramonium Prasad
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Grants Divorce to Husband, Criticizes Trial Judge’s Patriarchal and Repetitive Judgment
Adding to the complexity, the Kerala High Court had already intervened by ordering a status quo on April 16 for two months on the SFIO report, following a plea by CMRL against the Special Court's acceptance of the report.
Justice Prasad stated clearly:
"I can only record that the complaint was filed contrary to an oral assurance given to the court. I can send it back to the roster bench."
Read Also:- MP High Court Upholds CEO’s Authority to Withdraw Sarpanch’s Financial Powers in Corruption Case
He then recorded the previous verbal understanding that no complaint would be filed during the pendency of the writ petition and directed that the case be returned to the roster bench for further hearing, subject to the Chief Justice's directions.
The SFIO report accuses CMRL of committing fraud amounting to ₹197.7 crore, allegedly including bogus payments to T. Veena and her company Exalogic Solutions for IT and marketing services. The report also mentions payments to political figures for facilitating the company's operations.
Based on this report, the Ernakulam Sessions Court has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 129(7), 134(8), 447, 448 read with 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The Delhi High Court has thus underlined the importance of written agreements in legal proceedings and highlighted the jurisdictional conflict now arising due to simultaneous proceedings in different High Courts.
Title: CMRL v. Union of India
