# Shaukat Ali v. Union of Indiaand others - **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 747 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2002-10-09 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36788 of 2000 - **Bench:** M. Katju, Rakesh Tiwari - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shaukat-ali-v-union-of-indiaand-others-39966 - **Pages:** 3 ## 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 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. http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002 4. The company thereafter started production and also approached the Bank of India for financial assistance which required the petitioner to submit no dues certificate in order to facilitate financial assistance. The petitioner approached respondent no. 2 for no dues certificate in respect of the sale-deed/agreement and then was informed that still a balance of Rs.55,600/- towards principal amount and Rs.1,05,205-19 P. towards interest, totaling Rs. 1,60,805-19 P. is due. A recovery letter dated 10.8.2000 was issued by the U.P.F.C. for recovery of the aforesaid amount against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner showing his bonafide informed respondent no. 2 that if there was any calculation mistake on the part of U.P.F.C. in the calculation of principal amount, then it is prepared to pay the short fall of principal amount, but is not responsible for paying any interest thereon, it cannot be made to suffer for mistake of U.P.F.C. In order to establish its bonafide the petitioner company deposited Rs.20,000/- through cheque dated 8.5.2000 and Rs. 35,000/- through cheque dated 20.5.2000, total amounting to Rs.55,600/-. 6. It is contended that instead of issuing no due certificate, the respondents are demanding interest as well as penal interest on the short-fall amount of Rs.55,600/- which the petitioner was not liable to pay as it was due to mistake on the part of U.P.F.C. and the petitioner had never shirked from payment of sale consideration. It is contended that in any case the petitioner had already paid the full sale consideration as well as he had also made good the short fall in the principal amount. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had made an application stating therein that he had made the entire payment on 31.3.1997 as per the statement of account furnished by the U.P.F.C. and if any mistake has crept in the statement of accounts of U.P.F.C., the petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of any amount of interest muchless penal interest thereon. If such interest and penal interest is permitted to be charged by U.P.F.C., it will be against the sound principles of law and encourage the financial organizations to make windfall gain/benefit from their own wrong. The petitioner has paid full amount and short fall even in principal amount of Rs.55,600/- as per the statement of accounts furnished by the U.P.F.C. which could not be paid earlier due to alleged calculation mistake in their account. The petitioner has not defaulted in payment. 8. The maxim NULLUS COMMODUM CARREB 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. 9. The reasonableness of the rule is manifest that a party should not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. A wrongdoer ought not to be permitted to any interest muchless penal interest. 10. In view of the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the U.P.F.C. cannot be permitted to charge interest or penal interest and be made to gain by the wrong mistake committed by them. http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 3 All] M/s Overseas Agro Products (P) Ltd. V. U.P. Financial Corporation and another 749 11. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned recovery letter dated 10.8.2000 is quashed. No order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.10.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24996 of 1992 R.R. Shah ...Petitioner Versus Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.K. Srivastava Sri Vindhyachal Singh Sri Pradeep Kumar Sri B.B. Paul Sri R.K. Pandey Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Manoj Misra Sri R.K. Tewari Sri S.N. Upadhyay Sri S.N. Misra Constitution of India- Article 226- In case of temporary employee the employer has right to terminate the services of such employee according to terms of contract of service instead of holding enquiry even if the employee had been charged with misconduct. The petitioner did not submit proof of passing intermediate examination, hence his services were liable to be terminated on that ground according to the terms of his appointment. He also did not give any reply to the notice of show cause hence it was not necessary to hold any enquiry. (Held in para 17) Thus, in the circumstances of this case no principles of natural justice have been violated. In any case, termination of service is not liable to be interfered in the circumstances of this case and it is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Case Law referred: 2002 (93) FLR 971 AIR 1999 SC-2583 AIR 1966 SC-828 AIR 2000 SC-2783 (Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.) 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of temporary Routine Grade Clerk w.e.f. 1st March, 1981 subject to approval of Director of Education, Allahabad. At the time of joining the said post he had submitted his High School Certificate with a written undertaking that he will pass the Intermediate examination to comply with the requirement of qualification necessary for the post within the limited prescribed time. Inspite of sufficient opportunity to qualify the Intermediate examination he was not able to submit Intermediate examination certificate or mark-sheet. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the services of the petitioner have been terminated without holding any enquiry. It is contended that he has continuously worked as Routine Grade Clerk in William Holland University College till he fell ill on 1.3.1990. It is averred that he sent application for leave w.e.f. 1.3.90 to 30.5.1990, but due to prolong illness and advise of the Doctor he sent application for extension of leave. It is submitted that when the petitioner