My Perceptions :
1. The drawer is XYZ & drawee is ABC. BANK IS NOT THE DRAWEE. ONLY the "drawee" has the jurisdiction to file grievances under the provisions of the N.I.Act.
2. By the above parameter XYZ has (presumably) given cheque to ABC for some legal debt or liability. There is no "debt or liability" factor between XYZ & Bank. By endorsing a cheque of XYZ in favour of the Bank, NO TRI-PARTY agreement or liability or privity of contract can be created automatically, unless there is a registered deed to that affect.
3. ABC endorses the cheque in favour of BANK. Here due to other parameter under the N.I.Act, ABC becomes the deemed "drawer" to the bank and the Bank becomes the beneficiary drawee.
4. Now there is a privity of contract born between ABC and the Bank. XYZ is nowhere in the picture and there is NO "privity of contract" between XYZ and the Bank "NOR" THERE IS ANY LEGAL DEBT OR LIABILITY FROM XYZ (original drawer) TOWARDS THE BANK.
5. THIRD PARTY "debt or liability" is outside the purview of the N.I.Act. The N.I.Act has given a Criminal Fiction to dishonouring of a "DRAWER"s cheque and further the component of "Vicarious liability" is absent in third party debt or liability, specially so under the N.I.act. Here the Bank cannot make "averment" against orginal drawer XYZ, in its complaint under the N.I.Act.
6. Cheque gets dishonoured. ONLY THE first "DRAWEE" (ABC) has the jurisdiction to file case under the N.I.Act against the Drawer (XYZ). In the issue instant, if I were to advise then XYZ may just simply claim that XYZ issued the said cheque as a "GIFT" or a "friendly LOAN" to ABC (drawee) (specially so after ABC is absconding).
7. In above instant Bank not being the original drawee and not having any debt & liability component against the original drawer (XYZ) can-NOT seek redressal under the N.I.Act, against XYZ.
8. Bank can file redressal complaints under other laws, against ABC (the endorser of the cheque).
Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
