As per case facts, the appellant challenged the attachment of properties under the MPID Act by a Special Judge. The appellant argued that their security interest as a secured creditor ... under the SARFAESI Act was created much earlier than the MPID Act's actions, and the properties were not acquired from crime money. They further contended that the concerned entity was not a 'Financial Establishment' and the involved amount not a 'deposit' under the MPID Act, and that the Competent Authority lacked subjective satisfaction for the attachment. The question arose whether the MPID Act's provisions would override the SARFAESI Act, especially when a secured creditor had already enforced their security interest and possession of the properties had vested with them prior to the MPID Act's attachment order. Finally, the court held that where a security interest was already enforced and vested under SARFAESI Act prior to the MPID Act's attachment, the SARFAESI Act's provisions would prevail. The court found that the properties were mortgaged and acquired prior to the alleged crime, and without evidence that properties acquired from deposits were insufficient, attachment of other properties was unwarranted. Thus, the MPID Act's attachment order was deemed inconsequential and set aside for the appellant's properties, as SARFAESI Act is a complete code and its orders cannot be overridden by subsequent attachment orders under different statutes without proper challenge within the SARFAESI Act itself.