https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108604 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. en-us Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:39:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108604 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108604