What is the primary liability of the drawer of a bill of exchange or cheque?
Liability to compensate the holder incase of dishonour.
A bill of exchange and a cheque are types of negotiable instruments. These financial documents involve three parties: the drawer, the drawee, and the payee (or holder).
The drawer's liability is a crucial concept in understanding how bills of exchange and cheques work. While the drawee is primarily expected to pay, the drawer provides a guarantee of payment.
Let's look at the options provided:
This refers to the situation where the drawee fails to pay the bill or cheque when it is presented for payment (this is called dishonour). In such cases, the drawer is legally obligated to compensate the holder for the amount. This is a fundamental secondary liability of the drawer, acting as a backup payment guarantee.
This is primarily the responsibility of the drawee (or acceptor, if they have accepted the bill). The drawer's liability kicks in only if the drawee fails to pay at maturity.
This is an obligation between the drawer and the drawee, stemming from their underlying relationship (e.g., the drawer having an account with the bank). It's not the drawer's direct liability *to the holder* in case of default.
The drawer's liability is not unconditional. It arises specifically upon the dishonour of the instrument by the drawee after proper presentment, and usually requires notice of dishonour to be given to the drawer.
The core guarantee provided by the drawer when issuing a bill of exchange or cheque is that payment will be made. If the drawee fails to honour the instrument, the drawer steps in. Therefore, the primary liability is to make good the payment (compensate the holder) when the bill or cheque is dishonoured.
Match List-I with List-II and select the correct answer using codes given below :
Answer in context of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
| List-I | List-II |
| (a) Time and place for presentment | (i) Section 19 |
| (b) Cheques are payable in demand | (ii) Section 8 |
| (c) Holder of a negotiable instrument | (iii) Section 61 |
| (d) Fictitious drawer or payee | (iv) Section 42 |
Codes:
| List - I | List - II |
| (a) Kundan Lal Rallaram Vs. Custodian | (i) Presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act arises only if the execution of the document is proved as true |
| (b) C.T. Joseph Vs. I.V. Phillip | (ii) Burden of proof of failure of consideration for a negotiable instrument |
| (c) A.V. Murthy Vs. B.S. Nagabasavanna | (iii) A negotiable instrument is presumed to be drawn for consideration |
| (d) Beni Madhavnath Vs. Jugandra Nath Balwan | (iv) The statutory presumption envisaged under section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act is rebuttable. |
| (a) | (b) | (c) | (d) |