# Shaukat Ali v. Union of Indiaand others - **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 746 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2002-09-30 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 16503 of 2002 - **Bench:** M. Katju, Rakesh Tiwari - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shaukat-ali-v-union-of-indiaand-others-39963 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Article 226- Penal Interest- Principal amount already deposited- Petitioner already apprroched the authorities for no dues certificate- No action taken- following the Principle 'NULLUS COMMODUM CAPERE POTEST BE INJURIA SUA PROPRIA' penal interest can not be charged. Held- Para 8 and 10 The maxim NULLUS COMMODUM CAPERE POTEST BE INJURIA SUA PROPRIA. No man can take advantage of his own wrong, is based on elementary principles and is fully recognized in Courts of law. In view of the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the UPFC cannot be permitted to charge interest or penal interest and be made to gain by the wrong mistake committed by them. ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002 an earlier stage, the courts should not allow the party to re-agitate the matter at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings, especially when there was no change in circumstances so as to entail modification or change in the earlier view taken. Finality to a proceedings have to be given at some stage. If a litigant is permitted to keep re-agitating the same matter again and again, no finality to the proceedings can ever be given. The general principles of res judicata are broad enough to apply to miscellaneous proceedings and orders passed at different stages of the same litigation. 7. Thus, in my opinion, the order dated 14.10.1991 passed by the lower appellate court allowing the application of respondents no. 2 and 3 for leading additional evidence is liable to be set aside. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.10.1991 is quashed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.9.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J. Civil Misc. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 16503 of 2002 Shaukat Ali ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.M. Khan Sri Nasiruzzaman Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Addl. S.C. Sri D.P. Srivastava A.G.A. Constitution of India, Article 226- Detention Order- validity challenged allegation slaughtering cows and calfsknife and Rod-recovered- court will not permit to disturb communal amity- another Gujrat- No delay in deciding the representation- petition dismissed. Held- Para 2 Communal amity and harmony are absolutely essential for the progress of the nation. We cannot afford to have another Gujrat in U.P. Slaughter of cow hurts the sentiments of the Hindus and hence should not be committed. In our opinion cow slaughter affects public order because it is likely to incite communal tension. Hence it is not merely a case of law and order. We are also of the opinion that there was no delay in deciding the petitioner's representation. There is no merit in this petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. The petitioner is challenging the detention order dated 3.1.2002 Annexure 1 to the petitioner under N.S.A. A perusal of the grounds of detention copy of which is Annexure 2, shows that the allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner had slaughtered a cow and the knife and rods were recovered from him. This incident caused communal tension and hence the impugned detention order was passed. 2. Communal amity and harmony are absolutely essential for the progress of the nation. We cannot afford to have another Gujrat in U.P. Slaughter of cow hurts the sentiments of the Hindus and http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 3 All] Shaukat Ali V. Union of Indiaand others 747 hence should not be committed. In our opinion cow slaughter affects public order because it is likely to incite communal tension. Hence it is not merely a case of law and order. We are also of the opinion that there was no delay in deciding the petitioner's representation. There is no merit in this petition. The writ petition is dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 9.10.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36788 of 2000 M/s Overseas Agro Products (P) Limited ...Petitioner Versus Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Neeraj Tewari Sri Suneet Kumar Sri U.N. Sharma Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Neeraj Tripathi Sri Satish Chaturvedi S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226- Penal Interest- Principal amount already deposited- Petitioner already apprroched the authorities for no dues certificate- No action taken- following the Principle 'NULLUS COMMODUM CAPERE POTEST BE INJURIA SUA PROPRIA' penal interest can not be charged. Held- Para 8 and 10 The maxim NULLUS COMMODUM CAPERE POTEST BE INJURIA SUA PROPRIA. No man can take advantage of his own wrong, is based on elementary principles and is fully recognized in Courts of law. In view of the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the UPFC cannot be permitted to charge interest or penal interest and be made to gain by the wrong mistake committed by them. (Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. The petitioner is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956. It purchased M/s Vimla Soft Drinks (P) Ltd. from the U.P. Financial Corporation in auction sale for a sale consideration of Rs.11,50,000/-. The company paid a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- to the U.P.F.C. on 27.6.96 and it was agreed that the balance amount of Rs.5,75,000/- would be paid in two six monthly instalments i.e. first instalment of Rs.2,87,500/- be paid in September, 1996 and the remaining instalment be paid in March, 1997. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner paid Rs.2,95,000/- on 1.10.1996 and made enquiry about remaining balance. It was informed by the U.P.F.C. that Rs.2,02,200/- towards principal and Rs.56,777-92P. towards interest remained due. The total amount of Rs.2,58,97792P. was paid by petitioner company by cheque dated 31.3.1997 in round figure of Rs.2,59,000/-. In the account of U.P.F.C. the credit balance of Rs.22-08 P. was shown in favour of petitioner company towards interest. This fact is also apparent from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner contends that after this final payment, no amount remained due.