As per case facts, the petitioner bank challenged a state government order attaching properties that were mortgaged to the bank by educational societies for term loans. These loans became non-performing ... assets, prompting the bank to initiate recovery under the SARFAESI Act. However, the state government attached these properties under a state depositors protection act, alleging they were acquired with fraudulently collected depositors' funds. The bank contended that these properties were purchased much earlier with bank financing and had no illegal nexus to the alleged fraud, thus asserting its prior charge as a secured creditor. The question arose whether the state government's attachment under its Act overrides the bank's right to proceed under the SARFAESI Act, considering the latter's overriding effect. Finally, the Court held that the SARFAESI Act, a central legislation with an overriding clause, prevails over the state Act. The mortgaged properties were legitimately acquired, and the bank, being an innocent party, had a prior charge. Consequently, the state's attachment was quashed, allowing the bank to proceed with recovery under the SARFAESI Act.