2001 (3) TMI 1034 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of the Indian Limitation Act vs. Portuguese Civil Code in Goa, Daman, and Diu.
2. Interpretation of Article 535 of the Portuguese Civil Code.
3. Repeal and adaptation of local laws under the Goa, Daman & Diu Administration Act, 1962.
4. Doctrine of implied repeal.
5. Jurisdictional inconsistencies and procedural law considerations.

Summary:

1. Applicability of the Indian Limitation Act vs. Portuguese Civil Code in Goa, Daman, and Diu:
The central issue in this appeal was whether the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 or the Portuguese Civil Code governs the limitation period in Goa, Daman, and Diu. The Supreme Court previously held in Justiniano Augusto De Piedade Barreto v. Antonio Vicente Da Fonseca and Others, AIR (1979) SC 984 that the Portuguese Civil Code's provisions on limitation were local laws under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, the High Court of Bombay ruled that if the cause of action arose outside the Portuguese law, the Indian Limitation Act would apply.

2. Interpretation of Article 535 of the Portuguese Civil Code:
Article 535 of the Portuguese Civil Code provides a 20-30 year period for negative prescription, which was argued to be a local law for limitation. The Supreme Court considered whether this article should be treated as a special or local law within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

3. Repeal and adaptation of local laws under the Goa, Daman & Diu Administration Act, 1962:
Section 5 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Administration Act, 1962 states that existing laws would continue until amended or repealed by a competent authority. The court noted that the Portuguese Civil Code continued in force due to this provision. However, the Indian Contract Act and Negotiable Instruments Act were extended to Goa, Daman, and Diu, implying that the Portuguese Civil Code's provisions on contracts and promissory notes were replaced.

4. Doctrine of implied repeal:
The court examined whether the Indian Limitation Act impliedly repealed the Portuguese Civil Code's limitation provisions. The court held that the adaptation of the Indian Contract Act and Negotiable Instruments Act impliedly repealed the Portuguese Civil Code's provisions on limitation, particularly Article 535. The court emphasized that the entire chapter dealing with contracts in the Portuguese Civil Code, including its limitation provisions, could not survive independently after the adoption of the Indian Contract Act.

5. Jurisdictional inconsistencies and procedural law considerations:
The court highlighted the procedural inconsistencies that would arise if different limitation periods applied within India. The High Court of Bombay's jurisdiction extended to Goa, Daman, and Diu, and applying different limitation laws would create an anomalous situation. The court concluded that the Indian Limitation Act should uniformly apply, overruling the decision in Justiniano's case.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the court held that the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 applies to Goa, Daman, and Diu, and the Portuguese Civil Code's limitation provisions, specifically Article 535, were impliedly repealed by the adoption of the Indian Contract Act and the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Portuguese Civil Code could not be considered a special or local law within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

← Previous Next →