Parliamentary law prevails over State attachment, while conditional possession relief may continue pending sale of mortgaged property.

A conflict between a State attachment order under the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act and the enforcement rights of a corporation under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 was resolved in favour of the parliamentary law. The Court applied the constitutional scheme under Articles 246 and 254, holding that the State attachment could not defeat the corporation's mortgage and enforcement rights, so the section 29 action was not barred. At the same time, because the petitioner remained in possession and was conducting business, limited conditional relief was granted allowing continued possession and business until sale of the property, subject to payment and vacating conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the State attachment order under the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act barred the Corporation from invoking section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 in relation to the mortgaged property; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to continue in possession and conduct business in the premises until sale of the property by the Corporation, subject to conditions.

Issue (i): Whether the State attachment order under the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act barred the Corporation from invoking section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 in relation to the mortgaged property.

Analysis: The State enactment operated in a field within the State legislative sphere, while the Corporation was created under a parliamentary enactment traceable to Entry 43 of List I. In a situation of conflict between obligations created by the State law and those arising under the parliamentary law, the constitutional scheme under Article 246 gives primacy to Parliament in the occupied field, and Article 254 reinforces that supremacy where inconsistency arises. The mortgage and enforcement rights of the Corporation, therefore, could not be defeated by the State attachment order.

Conclusion: The State attachment did not bar the Corporation from exercising power under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, and the challenge to that action failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to continue in possession and conduct business in the premises until sale of the property by the Corporation, subject to conditions.

Analysis: Although the Corporation's enforcement power was upheld, the petitioner was admittedly in possession and carrying on business in the premises. Balancing the competing interests, the Court granted limited protective relief enabling continued possession and business till sale, while safeguarding the Corporation's rights by imposing payment obligations and a time-bound obligation to vacate after the sale process if the petitioner was not the highest bidder.

Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to remain in possession and run the business until sale, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The enforcement action under the parliamentary statute was upheld, but the petitioner received limited conditional relief to continue in possession and conduct business until the property was sold.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a parliamentary law and a State law create competing rights over the same property in an occupied legislative field, the parliamentary law prevails, though equitable conditional relief may still be granted to regulate possession pending sale.

---