CW-2022-0013Bengaluru Urban, KarnatakaJudgment 7 July 2022

Sri Bengaluru Man vs Official Liquidator of M/s India Holiday (Pvt.) Ltd. (in liquidation)

The Karnataka High Court awarded Rs 5,00,000 compensation to a 56-year-old man who was wrongfully arrested by police under a company court warrant issued against an ex-director of a company in liquidation, solely because the applicant shared a similar father's name. Despite the applicant's explicit protests that he was not the person named in the warrant, the police failed to verify his identity. The court held that arresting an innocent person without identity verification violates Article 21, directed the State to pay compensation with liberty to recover from the arresting officers, and ordered the DGP Karnataka to frame SOP guidelines and train arresting officers on identity verification. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.

How verification works →

Report card

By judgment dated 7 July 2022 in Company Application No. 96 of 2022 in Company Petition No. 26 of 2008, the Karnataka High Court (Coram: Suraj Govindaraj, J.) returned findings adverse to the Police Officer, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).

Register number
KA 01 CW 0026
Case reference
Company Application No. 96 of 2022 in Company Petition No. 26 of 2008 / 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1162
Court and date
Karnataka High Court (Coram: Suraj Govindaraj, J.), 7 July 2022
Officer(s) at the material time
Police Officer
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Rule 6 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959; Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959
Finding of the Court (extract)
“It is rather shocking that a person has been arrested without ascertaining whether he was the person who was required to be arrested and that the warrant had been issued against him. Though the arrestee had disputed that he was …” (at para 2)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Karnataka High Court judgment dated 7 July 2022 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported

Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.

Official finding: supports allegation.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“It is rather shocking that a person has been arrested without ascertaining whether he was the person who was required to be arrested and that the warrant had been issued against him. Though the arrestee had disputed that he was …” (para 2)

Institutional response

1
7 Jul 2022

Order issued

Concluded
Karnataka High Court External · Binding

The Karnataka High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1162
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.