GOTHAMCHAND JAIN Vs. ARUMUGAM @ TAMILARASAN
LAWS(SC)-2013-9-57
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on September 18,2013

Gothamchand Jain Appellant
VERSUS
Arumugam @ Tamilarasan Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

R. PERUMAL VS. N. GURURAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-54] [REFERRED TO]
PADMANABHA REDDIAR VS. PADMINI AMMAL(DIED) [LAWS(MAD)-2024-3-412] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR VS. SUKUMARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-446] [REFERRED TO]
NAMASSIVAYANE VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR-CUM-APPELLATE AUTHORITY [LAWS(MAD)-2022-9-154] [REFERRED TO]
R.SEGAR VS. THIAGARAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2020-1-96] [REFERRED TO]
ASSODAI VS. SUBRAMANIAN [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-342] [REFERRED TO]
SREEDHARAN(DECEASED) VS. THIRU. A.G. JAYABALAN [LAWS(MAD)-2018-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN VS. ASSODAI [LAWS(MAD)-2018-9-177] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)We are, in this appeal, concerned with the applicability of the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1956, vis- -vis, Article 2262 of the French Code Civil, said to be the governing law of limitation in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, erstwhile French Establishment.
(3.)Appellant herein preferred a suit, being OS No. 295 of 1991 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry. The suit was resisted, inter alia, on the ground of limitation, which was ultimately decreed in favour of the plaintiff. However, on the plea of limitation, the trial Court held as follows:
"12. On Issue No. 3: - Article 2262 of French Code Civil shows that the limitation for original cause of action is thirty years and it is a well settled law that the said provision is applicable to the Union Territory Pondicherry. Accordingly, suit claim is not time barred. Hence this issue is answered in the negative and in favour of the plaintiff."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.