advocate's reply seems to be the following generalized statements, namely, “now no amount is due and payable by my client to you” ; “ my client has kept following eight signed blank cheques.....as a security with you. Since you have not supplied good quality material, and the goods were of defective quality, were not packed properly and hence received in damaged condition.”; “you have also overcharged my client for the goods spent by him than the price of goods agreed between my client with you”. The goods were sold and delivered during the period 30 September 2010 and 4 November 2010. There is no contemporaneous grievance as to either the quality of the goods or the price charged for the same. In fact, after the last invoice, there have been as many as eight cheques issued for diverse sums aggregating to Rs.77,39,000/-, all of which have been dishonoured upon presentation for payment. The advocate's reply, which has come months after the last cheque was dishonoured, and which takes up generalized defences, as noted above, is no defence. It may be clearly described as nominal and illusory or moonshine. At the hearing of the Summons for Judgment, learned Counsel for the Defendant sought to pick holes in the documents, particularly invoices and statement of accounts, produced by the Plaintiff. The central fact, however, is that receipt of the goods has never been contested by the Defendant. Neither in his reply to the Summons for Judgment notice, nor in the general statements to be found in his advocate's reply the receipt of goods is disputed. All that the reply generally indicates, as noticed above, is that the goods were allegedly defective or that there was an alleged overcharging of price. These defences have come, as I have noted above, much after the supply of goods and the dishonour of cheques issued for payment towards the same.
