Banks, as social organizations, have to go out to the people and assist weaker sections in achieving their aspiration. They are, thus, to act as catalyst agents for the development of the country, mobilizing resources wherever these be a channelizing them towards productive purposes. New strategies have been developed since the last 50s, both in the small scale and large sectors and rather than confining to the traditional way of storage and distribution finance of a short-term nature, developmental finance and term lending have been taken up by commercial banks. Similarly, opening of branches in rural and urban areas and efficient customer services have assumed great importance. All this does not mean that the basis principle on which banking rests, i.e. security and profitability, have to be abandoned; what is necessary is that a new psychology has to be developed to suit the changing pattern. The concept of security has to be tempered and intermingled with faith in the borrower’s ability, capacity and the soundness of his project. While Banking is essentially a craft based on methodology and practices, Banking laws in the country has substantially remained the same over the past several decades. However, when it refers to the law relating to recovery process of the bank dues due with the clients, we have to say that the law relating to recovery of the Bank’s cash, has witnessed number of changes since 1990 till 2011. Earlier, when it reveal that an urgency as to recovery of Banks dues emerge, the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 was enacted with a view to quick disposal of those cases which are pending for recovery of Bnak’s money lying with the defaulter borrowers. Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 when reached at the age of 12, the jurists have felt necessity of amending the said law. However, while it came to light that mere amendment would not serve the purposes of the demand concerned, and the legislature’s intention may remain unaccomplished, Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 1990 was repealed by a new enactment as Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003. The Ain, 2003 was, thereafter, been amended by virtue of Ordinance (now ceased the enforceability of such ordinance). But, few amendments were needed by the subjects of the law to reach the purposes. Thus The Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 has been amended, lastly, in the year 2010. While we deals with the legal problem of Bank we refer our judicious mind not only to the Artha Rin Adalat Ain, 2003 but also we bear the other enactments like The Bank Companies Act, 1991, The Financial Institutions Act, 1993, The Financial Institutions Regulations, 1994, The Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2009, The Banker’s Book Evidence Act, 1891, The Bank Deposit Insurance Act, The Bangladesh Currency Order 1972, The Bangladesh Bank Order, 1972 Negotiable Instrument occupies an important place in every country of the world where the needs of the people are meeting through a number of business transactions. Actual passing of a cash at every point in the series of the transactions starting from the point of production and spreading after the arrival of the goods at the points of consumption was a real handicap there was thus the need of a method which would facilitate transaction and eliminate the actual movement of money in the form of cash. There should be something to symbolize the amount of money involved in a transaction and the responsibility of the person who has to pay it. Merchants solved this problem by creating documents which subsequently came to be known as negotiable Instrument and which carried a commitment on the part of certain person to pay a certain sum of money. The transfer of this document from hand to hand symbolizes actual payment. The documents were trusted as such because it was generally issued by a quarter of non-responsibility. The title of the recipient of such a document deserve to be specially protected because if his title could be defected by errors in the previous dealing with the documents such carriers of money loss their trust this created the need for a special law dealing with documents about by businessman as a substitute for money. The need was partly meant by the evolutionary process of the law-merchant itself. Merchants evolved the concept like ‘holder in due course’ to refer to the recipient of an instrument whose title would not be defected by equities the codification of this law resulted in the bills of exchange Act in England and the Negotiable Instruments Act. There are few basic tenets of an enactment dealing with Negotiable Instrument. One of them is that the circulation of negotiable papers should be as free as that of money itself but they should not claim equality with currency. For, otherwise, a private individual would be in a position to issue his own currency. Secondly, the tile of recipient in good faith should be beyond challenge and, finally, that while affording such extraordinary protection to a bona fide holder, no undue encouragement should be given to force and forgeries.