30 “notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force ...”. This Court resolved the conflict by considering the object and purpose of the two laws and giving precedence to the Banking Companies Act by observing: “It is, therefore, desirable to determine the overriding effect of one or the other of the relevant provisions in these two Acts, in a given case, on much broader considerations of the purpose and policy underlying the two Acts and the clear intendment conveyed by the language of the relevant provisions therein” (p. 615) As indicated by us, the special and specific purpose which motivated the enactment of Section 14-A and Chapter III-A of the Delhi Rent Act would be wholly frustrated if the provisions of the Slum Clearance Act requiring permission of the competent authority were to prevail over them. Therefore, the newly introduced provisions of the Delhi Rent Act must hold the field and be given full effect despite anything to the contrary contained in the Slum Clearance Act.” 29. In Talcher Municipality v. Talcher Regulated Market Committee16, the Court was dealing with the question whether the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 or Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956 should apply. Section 4(4) of the 16 (2004) 6 SCC 178 Page 30