The documents of the case revealed that the court had concluded that an agreement existed between the company (the appellant) and another company where the second litigant was the representative of the appellant.

The court said that the court concluded that the company owed an amount of money to the other company as a result of commercial transactions. The court said that the court had established its ruling on the grounds of the report of an expert and photocopies of the disputed cheque and other documents. The court said that the company's defence that the documents on which t the ruling was established were fabricated were irrelevant. The court said that the company had failed to maintain this defence before the relevant court and therefore it did not have the right to introduce it to the court of cassation for the first time.

The court dismissed the appeal.