RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. ( 2 ) THE petitioner a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956. It purchased M/s Vimla Soft Drinks (P) Limited 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 27-6-1996 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. 92 P. towards interest remained due. The total amount of Rs. 2. 58,977. 92 P. 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 writ petition. The petitioner contends that after this final payment, no amount remained due, ( 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, totalling 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. 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, totalling 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 bona/ide 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 bona/ide the petitioner company deposited Rs. 20,000/- through cheque dated 8-5-2000 and Rs. 35,000/7- 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 has never shirked from payment of sale consideraton. 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 much-less 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. 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 CAPERE POTEST BE IN JUKI A 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. RF. C. cannot be permitted to charge interest or penal interest and be made to gain by the wrong mistake committed by them. ( 11 ) THE writ petition is allowed and the impugned recovery letter dated 10-8-2000 is quashed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .