# In the matter of Mr. T. Johnson Vs. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 32-2019

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-01-23. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00856. This is a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 32 of 2019 before the National Company Law…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 23 Jan 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00856
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/mr-t-johnson-vs-phoenix-arc-pvt-ltd-anr-ca-27806610

## Summary

### Background

This is a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 32 of 2019 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The appellant, Mr. T. Johnson, is appealing a decision made by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal). The appellant's counsel argues that the claim is time-barred and no debt is payable under the law, which the Adjudicating Authority did not properly consider.

## Facts

Mr. T. Johnson filed a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 32 of 2019 against Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The appellant's counsel argued that the claim was time-barred and no debt was payable under the law. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) did not properly consider this issue. The court ordered a notice to be issued to the respondent. The 'Interim Resolution Professional' was instructed to ensure the company remains ongoing and to seek assistance from the suspended Board of Directors and individual Director. The bank account(s) of the ‘Corporate Debtor' be allowed to be operated for day-to-day functioning of the company such as for payment of current bills of the suppliers,

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) properly considered the …

**Ratio:** The ratio is based on the principles of limitation and the requirement for the

…

**Reasoning:** The court's reasoning is that the Adjudicating Authority should have addressed the

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation is that the Adjudicating Authority has a duty to consider

…

**Application:** The application of the ratio and reasoning to the facts is that the court is

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** T. Joh…
- **Respondents:** Phoenix ARC Pvt.…
- **Advocates:** Amit S. C…; S.C.…; +4 more

## Timeline

- **2019-01-23 — Appellant's Su…**: Appellant's counsel submits that the claim is time-barred and there is no debt payable in…
- **2019-01-24 — Notice to Res…**: Deadline for filing process fee for…

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/mr-t-johnson-vs-phoenix-arc-pvt-ltd-anr-ca-27806610