The court must assess the basis of the defense and pronounce judgment in favor of the claimant if the defense is found to be fanciful.

1. The company is not represented.

2. The claim of the appellant is on account of balance price of goods sold and delivered.

3. According to the appellant pearl coke was supplied to the company between February 16, 2011 and February 27, 2011 of value in excess of Rs. 16.10 lakh.

4. Against this, the appellant claims to have received a total payment of Rs. 10 lakh leaving the balance outstanding to be due save for an amount of Rs. 57,000/- odd for which a credit note was forwarded by the appellant to the company.

5. According to the defence of the company before the company Court, the company did not owe any money to the appellant herein. The company claimed to have issued a debit note on or about February 28, 2011 seeking adjustment of a sum in excess of Rs. 12.98 lakh.

6. The company Court observed that the claim had to await a trial since it was an oath versus oath situation where the company asserted that it had issued a debit note immediately upon the supplies being received and the appellant completely denied the receipt of such debit note.

7. The company Court held that once an assertion had been made in course of a defence and such assertion was denied, a protracted action was called for as the matter could not be decided on affidavits or on summary evidence. This aspect of the company Court’s order cannot be faulted.

8. However, in an adjudication of a claim against a company, the company Court also has to assess the nature of the claim and the defence thereto. In this case, the appellant herein completely disowned the debit note allegedly issued on February 28, 2011 by the company to the appellant. The appellant denied the receipt of the debit note and disowned the signature attributed to the appellant thereon. Clearly, the situation gave rise to a dispute that could not be resolved without evidence being led in a more protracted trial. But it would not do for either a company to merely indicate a defence or for the company Court to notice that some modicum of the defence had been indicated. The company Court is required to go into the basis of the defence and if such defence is found to be fanciful or moonshine, the company Court has to pronounce judgment in favour of the claimant. Further, when such irreconcilable stands are taken by two parties, a prima facie view should be expressed thereon. In this case, the appellant points out that it is inconceivable that the debit note would have issued on February 28, 2011, barely a day after the last supply was received by the company, and yet the company would proceed to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lakh by two cheques which were issued to and encashed by the appellant in April and in September, 2011.

9. The appellant asserts that if the debit note value of Rs.12.98 lakh was genuine and such debit note had been contemporaneously issued on the date indicated therein, there would be no occasion for the company to pay two tranches of Rs. 5 lakh each thereafter. Since the total value of the supply effected by the appellant to the company was around Rs. 16.10 lakh, the issuance of debit note would have left a sum Rs. 3 lakh and odd to be paid by the company to the appellant. However, the appellant was paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakh in two tranches of Rs. 5 lakh each. Such payments were made by cheques and the relevant cheques were issued to and encashed by the appellant in April, 2011 and in September, 2011.

10. In the light of such undeniable position that the company paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakh against supplies received, the total value of which was Rs. 16 lakh, after having apparently raised a debit note for nearly Rs. 13 lakh, the company Court ought to have rendered a prima facie finding that the debit note may have been manufactured or antedated and used only as a ploy to thwart the realisation of the appellant’s claim.

11. Even though the company Court may not have been in a position to conclusively decide as to whether the debit note was issued by the company on February 28, 2011 or wh