Veena said she had established the firm two years before her father became the chief minister, and added that he was not involved in the firm's operations
Published Jun 11, 2025 | 3:06 PM ⚊ Updated Jun 11, 2025 | 3:06 PM
Kerala CM’s daughter Veena Vijayan denies reports of admission in CMRL payment case Photo: Supplied
Synopsis: In her first written affidavit, T Veena refuted all charges, saying her firm functioned legally, and the petition for a CBI probe was intended to tarnish her image as well as that of her father, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.
Categorically denying all allegations regarding her now-defunct firm’s deals with Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL), Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s daughter T Veena told the high court that all transactions between the two companies were legal.
Opposing a petition seeking a CBI probe into the alleged irregularities to the tune of ₹197.7 crore, Veena said in her affidavit that the dealings with CMRL were transparent and in compliance with the existing laws.
She added that Exalogic Solutions, her IT firm, was not a benami organisation and all money transfers were legal. Her company received money from CMRL for IT services it had provided, she said in the affidavit.
A journalist, MR Ajayan, had filed the petition for an investigation by the premier probe agency. It was alleged that Exalogic received the payments for services that were not provided. Veena refuted the charge that was made in a report by the Income Tax Interim Settlement Board.
Challenging the demand for the CBI probe, Veena said the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) has been investigating the case, and she was cooperating with the probe. Hence, there was no need for a CBI probe. She alleged that the petition was meant to tarnish her image since she is the chief minister’s daughter.
Terming herself a qualified professional, Veena said she had established the firm two years before her father became the chief minister, and added that he was not involved in the firm’s operations. The firm, she said, ceased its operations during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Earlier, Chief Minister Vijayan, too, made a similar accusation in an affidavit, saying the petition was politically motivated.
Vijayan called the allegations “false and unsubstantiated,” asserting that there was no prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, warranting a CBI inquiry.
He said other agencies were already looking into the matter and urged the court to dismiss the petition, stating he had “nothing to hide” but found a CBI probe “unnecessary and unjustified”.
On 16 April this year, the Kerala High Court stayed further proceedings related to the SFIO report for two months, effectively ordering a status quo.
The SFIO report alleged fraudulent financial transactions amounting to ₹197.7 crore by CMRL, including alleged payments to political figures to influence operations.
The complaint invokes Sections 129(7), 134(8), 447, and 448 read with Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.
CMRL and its General Manager (Finance), P Suresh Kumar, earlier contested the Sessions Court’s cognizance, arguing that they were not granted a pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223(1) of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the CrPC and should apply to complaints filed post-March 2025.
