1 f . i. Thus, it has bccr-t hcld that the aspect relating to protecting the intcrcst of thc borrowers which is sought to be achieved by the State enact rrrents gets subsumed in the provisions of Chapter III-B o1 the RBI Act. Thereafter Supreme Court adverted to the doctrine' of ecLipse and observed that while the RBI Act is traceable onlv to the entries in List-I, the State enactments are traccable only to entries in List-ll. Therefore, qucstion o[ rc1;r.rgnirnc,r, under Article 254 of the Constitution r.,,otrlrl not ar ist'. Nonctheless Supreme Court held that Section 45-Q of the RRI A<'t conlers ovcrriding effect upon Chapter Ill-B ot the ltBl Act over other laws. Besides, Chapter III-B is a complete Codc rn rtsclI Re.lecting the contention of the States of Gr,rjarat and Kcr:rla tllat the laws cnacted by them are in addition to thc provisions of Chaptcr III-B, Supreme Court held that provisions o['Cl.rapter III-B would eclipse the