Limitation as a technical defence was declined in a refund claim, leaving the decree undisturbed.

A refund claim supported by the Assistant Collector of Customs' recommendation was treated as a just claim, while the limitation objection under Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act was viewed as a technical defence that should be approached with caution, particularly when raised by a public authority against a legitimate claim. In the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136, the SC declined to examine that limitation contention on merits, revoked special leave, and left the refund decree undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim for refund was barred by limitation under Section 110 of the Madras Port Trust Act, and whether special leave should be exercised under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in view of the nature of the plea.

Analysis: The claim was treated as a just claim supported by the recommendation of the Assistant Collector of Customs. The Court emphasised that a limitation plea is a technical defence viewed with disfavour, especially when raised by a public authority against a legitimate claim. In the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136, the Court declined to proceed to hear and decide the limitation contention on merits.

Conclusion: The Court refused to adjudicate the limitation plea, revoked the special leave, and left the respondent's refund decree undisturbed.

---