let there be an order of status quo till the amendment is carried out impleading the auction purchaser as party in this S.A. proceeding. the status quote  order is not valid as on date, has auction purchaser has already been made party to the proceedings 

Your question revolves around the meaning of, "status quo till the amendment is carried out impleading the auction purchaser as party in this S.A. proceeding." Carrying out amendment is not just the act of submitting of application. Opportunity will be given to file his objections if any to the application and if opposes, status quo will be there till your application is decided. You can clarify the position from PO.  

If there was no memo filed before the court seeking extension of status quo order then it can be deemed that the status quo order is not existing anymore. 

However until and unless the court passes any order in this regard vacating the status quo order, it can be deemed that the status quo order subsists, you may enquire about it in the court itself directly on the next date of hearing

Stay wont vacate without speaking orders of PO.

To address your query:

1. Validity of Status Quo Post-Impleadment

The order dated 13/03/2024 states that "there be an order of status quo till the amendment is carried out impleading the auction purchaser." The purpose of this status quo order was to maintain the existing state of affairs and prevent any prejudice until the impleadment process was completed.

The subsequent order dated 19/06/2024 confirms that the impleadment of the auction purchaser was carried out that day. Therefore, the specific condition triggering the validity of the status quo order—completion of the amendment—was fulfilled on 19/06/2024.

Thus, after 19/06/2024, the status quo order, as per its plain language, would no longer be effective.

2. Order Dated 09/08/2024

The order dated 09/08/2024 was passed not to continue the status quo but to address the non-compliance by the Respondent Bank with prior directions.

Key points from the 09/08/2024 order:

• It highlights that the Respondent Bank failed to file details of the sale or the name and address of the auction purchaser, as directed by the orders dated 18/12/2023 and 13/03/2024.
• The Registrar-in-Charge granted the Applicant's request to escalate the matter to the Presiding Officer for further necessary directions.

This order does not revive or revalidate the earlier status quo order; instead, it deals with procedural non-compliance by the Respondent Bank and ensures the matter is appropriately placed before the Presiding Officer.

Conclusion

1. The status quo order became invalid post-impleadment on 19/06/2024.
2. The order dated 09/08/2024 was procedural and intended to address the Respondent Bank's failure to comply with tribunal directions, not to extend or modify the status quo.

If further clarity or relief is required, you can move an appropriate application before the Presiding Officer in the next hearing.

- Since, there is no order for the vacation of the Status Quo , then it will be continued even after the amendment is carried out.

I’d the status quo is not continued then it’s not valid. For status quo to vacate an order vacating the same is necessary. You can seek order continuing the same if you are for applicant you can extend it else the bank can continue its action

1. Status Quo Validity:

   • The order dated 13/03/2024 directed a status quo until the amendment for impleading the auction purchaser was carried out.
   • On 19/06/2024, the amendment was carried out, and it was recorded that the impleadment had been completed in compliance with the earlier direction. This indicates that the condition for lifting the status quo—impleadment—had been fulfilled.
   • Therefore, as per procedural interpretation, status quo ceased to be valid after 19/06/2024, when the impleadment was completed.

2. Order Dated 09/08/2024:

   • This order primarily addresses the Respondent Bank's non-compliance with previous directions (dated 18/12/2023 and 13/03/2024) to provide details of the sale and the auction purchaser.
   • The Registrar-in-Charge granted the Applicant's prayer to escalate the matter to the Presiding Officer, emphasizing the Bank's continued non-compliance.
   • This order does not impose or extend the status quo but deals with procedural lapses by the Respondent Bank.

Why Another Order Dated 09/08/2024?

• Despite the impleadment being carried out, the Respondent Bank's non-compliance with prior orders (failing to provide sale details and auction purchaser information) warranted the escalation of the matter.
• The Registrar-in-Charge does not have the authority to issue substantive directions on the merits of the case; thus, the matter was listed before the Presiding Officer for further directions.

Conclusion:

• The status quo is no longer valid after the impleadment on 19/06/2024.
• The order dated 09/08/2024 was procedural and aimed at addressing the Respondent Bank's non-compliance with previous orders and ensuring the case's progression.

For detailed, personalized advice, consider a phone consultancy. Hope you find the information helpful. You are free to contact me for further discussion. If you could spare two minutes of your time to write a review, it would be greatly appreciated and bring immense happiness to read it. Thank you. Shubham Goyal.

As  per the order dated 13.3.2024 the status quo will be in operation till the amendment for the purpose of impleadment is carried out.

Now unless there is any specific order for further extension of the same , the status quo is no more in operation. 

1. If the Respondent Bank has not submitted the details of  the Auction Sale and also the Purchaser how can you implead his name and amend your SARFAESI Application?

2. How has the Registrar mentioned in his order dated 19.6.2024 "The Ld. Advocate for the Applicant carried out impleadment today, in compliance with Ld. Presiding Officer’s Order dated 13/03/2024" and again mentioned in his order dated 9.8.2024 that the name has not been impleaded?. This order shows that the order dated 19.6.2024 was incorrect.

3. Since the Order dated 9.8.2024 of the Registrar stated that the name of the purchaser has not been imnpleaded for want of details to be submitted by the Bank, the status quo order dated 13.3.2024  passed by the P.O. is still valid.

Dear Client,

The status quo order dated 13/03/2024 was subject to the condition that it would remain operative only until the impleadment of the auction purchaser was complete. The impleadment was done on 19/06/2024 as is reflected by the order of the same date, the status quo order thereby lost its operative effect. However, the order dated 09/08/2024 from the Registrar-in-Charge that follows does seem to relate more to issues of non-appearance by the Respondent Bank as well as procedural non-compliance. This order is administrative and instructs that the matter should be brought before the Presiding Officer for further orders in the event of the Respondent Bank's failure to comply. Does not change the expiry date for the status quo, inasmuch as that is already met by 19/06/2024. Let me know if you need assistance in putting this matter in a suitable format or rephrasing it before you present before the DRT. Let me know if you need further assistance.

Status quo  order is not valid as impleadmemt had been done and auction purchaser is made party to the proceedings 

As on 19.6.24 petition was filed to carry out amendment to amend the main application by incorporating the name of purchaser/respondent and court has not passed any order revoking the status quo order on 9.8.24 also.

Thus just because the Bank uploaded the purchase details it cannot take law into its hands to take physical possession during pendency of the proceedings before DRT..

You have not posted your advocate's opinion anywhere in posts in this regard, he is the right person to advise you further because he's aware of entire proceedings and day to day updates.

Your advocate's opinion if posted here will enable us to guide you more properly in furtherance.

You need to confirm that from court itself about the status quo. You can bring the said facts before presiding officer of DRT he will take the decision

- You can enquire from the Court staff to know the exact order 

I agree with your advocate that there is no status quo other as on date 

Nothing prevents you from proceeding with your advocate's opinion, because he is the right person to render such opinions as he knows the complete details of the case and the day to day business of each and every hearing.

You may follow the advise of your advocate instead of getting confused on the basis of your own imaginary concepts.

Kindly book the consultation for a detailed understanding.

1. You have not mentioned earlier that the Bank has uploaded the details of the sale in the DRT Website. However, The Order of P.O.  dated.12.2023 stated "Respondent bank is directed to file details of sale and name and address of the auction purchaser within two days enabling the Sarfaesi applicant to implead the auction purchaser as party to the proceeding". For any filing of any paper/application/document, copy shall have to be served upon the Opposite Party being the Applicant herein which has not been done by the Respondent Bank. The Applicant is not expected to search the website everyday to find out what has been filed by the Respondent Bank. Without Service Affidavit submitted by the Bank , it will not be considered that the Bank has informed about the details of the sale to the Applicant to enable him to implead the concerned persons.

2. So, the Status Quo order is still valid.

3. The Order dated 19.06.2024 is incorrect as found from the Order dated 9.8.2024 of the Registrar stating that the name of the purchaser has not been impleaded for want of details to be submitted by the Bank. So, the status quo order is still in place.

1. After the order dated 19.6.2024 passed by the Registrar, there has been another Order passed by him on 9.8.2024 stating that the purchaser has not been impleaded. 

2. The fact is also that the Bank has not served any copy of the information about the sale to the Applicant as per the Order dated 18.12.2023 which is on record.

3. So, the status quo is still valid.