Back
B.N.KIRPAL, BRIJESH KUMAR, UMESH C.BANERJEE
Syndicate Bank – Appellant
Versus
Prabha D. Naik – Respondent
Key Points: - The Supreme Court held that there is one general law of limitation for the entire country (Limitation Act, 1963) and that Portuguese Civil Code provisions on limitation are not to be treated as local law saving different periods; they are repealed by implication for rights arising under Indian law (!) (!) (!) . - The Court concluded that the extinction of remedy under Portuguese law cannot stand where rights arise under Indian law (Contract Act and Negotiable Instrument Act), due to implied repeal of Article 535 and related Portuguese limitation provisions (!) (!) (!) . - The decision discusses that the Portuguese Civil Code cannot provide a separate limitation period for actions arising under Indian statutes once Indian law is adapted and applied to Goa, Daman and Diu; adaptation of Indian Contract Act and Negotiable Instrument Act leads to implied repeal of corresponding Portuguese limitations (!) (!) (!) . - The High Court and Supreme Court analyses address the extension of Bombay High Court jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu and its impact on limitation matters, including the extension acts and Article 515 bar of the Civil Code (!) (!) (!) . - Regulation and adaptation measures (Regulation 11/12 of 1963; Goa, Daman and Diu Laws) show Negotiable Instrument Act and Contract Act applied in the Union Territory, supporting the view that Limitation Act governs suits against rights arising outside the Portuguese Code (!) (!) . - The judgment overrules Justiniano’s case in light of the Limitation Act of 1963 and the 1981 extension of Bombay High Court jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu (!) (!) . - The appeals are dismissed with no costs, affirming the above conclusions about limitation in Goa, Daman and Diu (!) .
JUDGMENT
Banerjee, J.-The applicability of the provisions of Indian Limitation Act vis-a-vis the interpretation of Article 535 of the Portuguese Civil Code, said to be the governing law of Limitation in the State of Goa, Daman & Diu, is the focal point for consideration in this appeal. Needless to record that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 contains the provisions for savings of the Limitation Act which expressly provides that the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (both inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by special or local law. In interpreting the said provision under Section 29(2) and the Portuguese Civil Code pertaining to the question of limitation as being a local law within the meaning of Section 29(2), this Court in the case of Justiniano Augusto De Piedade Barreto v. Antonio Vicente Da Fonseca and Others1 came to a conclusion that the body of the provisions in the Portuguese Civil Code dealing with the subject of limitation of suits etc. and in force in the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu only, is the local law within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. This Court
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
