Suppletion is very conspicuous in Diu Indo-Portuguese, both of the weak (e.g. trag 'bring(s)' vs. tros 'brought') and strong type (e.g. vay 'go(es)' vs. foy 'went').
Tense is responsible for suppletive alternations (e.g. vẽy 'come.NPST.PFV' vs. vey 'come.PST.PFV'). The fact that these forms simultaneously contribute temporal and aspectual information should not mislead us, though. As a matter of fact, all finite verb forms in Diu Indo-Portuguese have a Perfective reading (i.e. Imperfectivity is not coded morphologically) and, as such, suppletive alternations rest solely on Tense alternations. On the contrary, Imperfective marking resorts to auxiliaries preposed to the nonfinite form of the main verb. There are two imperfective auxiliaries, te/tə and tiŋ, non-Past and Past respectively; these, however, are verbal in nature, so the alternation observed is, once again, motivated by Tense.
The only cases in which one might recognize suppletion according to Aspect involve suppletive alternation between finite verb forms and their nonfinite counterparts, in the sense that the former are laden with aspectual information whereas the latter are neutral in that respect. In Diu Indo-Portuguese, this type of suppletive alternation obtains only for one verb: ir 'go.INF' vs. vay 'go.NPST.PFV' vs. foy 'go.PST.PFV'. However, I have decided to disregard this instance because ir is a highly acrolectal form, taken directly from Standard Portuguese and used only by a small section of the speech community in very particular social contexts; the regular nonfinite form of this particular verb is, in fact, equivalent to the non-Past finite form: vay.