What is distinction between continuing wrong and recurring wrong?

  A distinction has to be made between a "continuing wrong" and a "recurring wrong". The difference between the two has been clarified in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh   MANU/SC/7976/2008 : 2008:INSC:930 : (2008) 8 SCC 648 where it has been held that a "continuing wrong" is when the injury itself persists, whereas a "recurring wrong" is when a fresh cause of action arises each time.

{Para 28}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 11786 of 2025.

Decided On: 12.09.2025

Vaneeta Patnaik Vs. Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale, JJ.

Author: Pankaj Mithal, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1106, MANU/SC/1270/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Non Payment Of Debt After Issuance Of Recovery Certificate Not A Continuing Wrong

 Having heard learned Counsel for both parties, we are of the
view that this is a case covered by our recent judgment in B.K.
Educational Services Private Limited vs. Parag Gupta and
Associates, 2018 (14) Scale 482, para 27 of which reads as
follows:-
“27. It is thus clear that since the Limitation Act
is applicable to applications filed under Sections 7
and 9 of the Code from the inception of the Code,
Article 137 of the Limitation Act gets attracted.
“The right to sue”, therefore, accrues when a
default occurs. If the default has occurred over
three years prior to the date of filing of the
application, the application would be barred under
Article 137 of the Limitation Act, save and except
in those cases where, in the facts of the case,
Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be applied to
condone the delay in filing such application.”

Following this judgment, it is clear that when the Recovery
Certificate dated 24.12.2001 was issued, this Certificate injured
effectively and completely the appellant’s rights as a result of
which limitation would have begun ticking.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11020 OF 2018

VASHDEO R BHOJWANI  Vs ABHYUDAYA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD 

Dated:September 02, 2019.
R.F. Nariman, J.

Print Page

SHORT NOTES ON LIMITATION ACT PART 3

S 18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing:-

Acknowledgment means a definite, clear admission of existing liability.

It is not necessary that there should be promise to pay. An acknowledgment does not create any new right of action but only enlarges the time and has the effect of making a new period run from the date of acknowledgment. Under this section, an acknowledgment is not limited in respect of a debt only, it may be in respect of “any property or right” which is the subject matter of the suit. There must be an unqualified,or an admission qualified by a condition which is fulfilled.

Ingredients of S 18 and essentials of a valid acknowledgment:-

To constitute a valid acknowledgment and thus to give a fresh period of limitation under this section,the following conditions must be satisfied.

1) The acknowledgment must have been made before the expiration of the period prescribed.

2) The acknowledgment must have been made by the party against whom the right is then claimed or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability.

Print Page

Whether doctrine of laches is applicable in case of continuing wrong?

 As regards the issue of delay in matters pertaining to claims of pension, it has already been opined by this Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 that in cases of continuing or successive wrongs, delay and laches or limitation will not thwart the claim so long as the claim, if allowed, does not have any adverse repercussions on the settled third-party rights. This Court held:

7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.

Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Asger Ibrahim Amin vs Life Insurance Corp. Of India on 12 October, 2015

Bench: Vikramajit Sen, Abhay Manohar Sapre

Citation:(2016) 13 SCC 797

Print Page

Whether services related claims based on continuing wrong can be entertained at belated stage?

In the latter case their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the exceptions to the normal rule of limitation, held as under:-- 
"7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrong will apply. As a consequence, the High Court will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition." 




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 



Writ Petition No. 133 SB of 2008. 

Habib Ali ....................................Petitioner. 

Versus 

State of U.P. and others. ..........................Opposite parties. 


Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J. 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J. 

(Oral- Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.) 
Dated;06.04.2015 
Citation;2015 (4) AWC 4174.

Print Page