SARFAESI overrides relief undertaking suspension, allowing secured creditors to enforce security interest despite the notification.

The SARFAESI Act, 2002 prevails over the Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 where the two are inconsistent, because SARFAESI confers a secured creditor's right to enforce security interest without court intervention and contains an overriding non obstante clause. The relief undertaking notification could suspend liabilities and proceedings, but it could not curtail enforcement under Section 13. The Court held that the expression "any other law" in Section 35 is not confined to Central laws or the same legislative field, and the secured creditor may proceed under SARFAESI notwithstanding the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 overrides the suspension of liabilities and proceedings under the Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 and the notification issued thereunder, so as to permit a secured creditor to enforce its security interest under Section 13.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 confers on secured creditors a right to enforce security interest without intervention of court and gives the Act overriding effect by reason of its non obstante clause. The Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 and the notification issued under it suspend pre-existing liabilities and proceedings of the relief undertaking, which directly impedes enforcement action under Section 13. Reading the two enactments together, the Court found an actual overlap and inconsistency in their operation. Applying the principle that a later parliamentary enactment with a clear overriding clause prevails over an inconsistent law, the Court held that the secured creditor's statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act cannot be curtailed by the relief undertaking notification. The Court also rejected the contention that the later Act's overriding effect was confined only to Central laws or laws in the same legislative field, and held that the expression "any other law" in Section 35 could not be artificially restricted.

Conclusion: The SARFAESI Act prevails over the Maharashtra Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958 to the extent of inconsistency, and the secured creditor may proceed under Section 13 notwithstanding the notification declaring the borrower a relief undertaking.

---