10.The question that we have to consider is whether, by virtue of the Limitation Act, 1963, the French Law of Limitation which had been in force till 1-1-1964, was in any manner repealed or modified by the Limitation Act, 1963. We can draw considerable sustenance from the ratio laid down by this Court in Syndicate Bank[(2001) 4 SCC 713] , wherein, we have already indicated, this Court considered the interaction between the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 vis-à-vis Article 535 of the Portuguese Civil Code. In that case, this Court held as follows: (SCC p. 727, para 20) “20. … In any event, as noticed above, the Portuguese Civil Code, in our view, could not be read to be providing a distinct and separate period of limitation for a cause of action arising under the Indian Contract Act or under the Negotiable Instruments Act since the Civil Code ought to be read as one instrument and cause of action arising therefrom ought only to be governed thereunder and not otherwise. The entire Civil Code ought to be treated as a local law or special law including the provisions pertaining to the question of limitation for enforcement of the right arising under that particular Civil Code and not dehors the same and in this respect the observations of the High Court in Cadar Constructions [Cadar Constructions v. Tara Tiles, AIR 1984 Bom 258 : 1984 Mah LJ 603] that the Portuguese Civil Code could not provide for a period of limitation for a cause of action which arose outside the provisions of that Code, stands approved. A contra
