Delhi HC reserves judgment in Rajpal Yadav case: Actor's lawyer cites 'losses mounting to ₹17 crore due to film’

The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its judgment in the cheque bounce litigation involving Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav, after a final attempt at a settlement failed despite persistent judicial intervention, with the actor delivering an emotional plea during the proceedings.

The case was presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who expressed clear dissatisfaction regarding Yadav's inconsistent stance concerning the repayment of his outstanding debts.

On the matter, Rajpal’s current counsel Bhaskar Upadhyay told Hindustan Times: “The previous counsel in this case filed a petition jis mein factually correct rakha nahin in front of the court. Now, the court’s concern is that ‘aap ke purane vakil was saying something else and now you guys are saying something else.’ So we presented that petitioners shouldn’t get punished for the lawyers’ mistake.”

Upadhyay added: “Court ne baat karane ki bhi koshish ki, saying, ‘aap paisen de de and mamla suljha le’. Then I had a discussion with Rajpal ji and his concern was that, ‘Humari opportunities ko bandh na kiya jaye, paise badi cheez nahin hain. They are asking for ₹11 crore against ₹5 crore along with jail terms; what about our losses mounting to ₹17 crore because of the film in question?’ Agar case reserve hain, toh it’s up to the court when they give a decision.”

Throughout the hearing, the Court made sincere efforts to guide the parties toward a negotiated resolution. Upon inquiry, the complainant consented to accept a lowered sum of ₹6 crore as a comprehensive and final settlement.

However, in a notably emotional response, Yadav rejected the proposal, claiming he had already endured devastating financial losses.

Joining the session virtually, he informed the Court that he had been forced to liquidate five apartments and had already disbursed a significant total.

He remarked, "I am not emotional... send me to jail five more times," highlighting the immense pressure the lengthy litigation has exerted on him.

Representing the complainant company, advocate Avneet Singh Sikka argued that Yadav had previously accepted his conviction and should not now be permitted to evade his financial liabilities.

He emphasised that a revision petition submitted in 2024 was marred by an unexplained delay of 1,894 days and lacked valid grounds for condonation.

He further contended that fulfilling a prison sentence does not release an accused individual from their underlying financial obligations.

Sikka also pointed out that despite numerous assurances, the debts remained unsettled, leaving the petitioner with no choice but to pursue proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

In an attempt to resolve the impasse, the Court suggested a structured payment of ₹3 crore within a specific timeframe, clarifying that it was a judicial suggestion rather than a finalized agreement.

Despite these efforts, no consensus was achieved.

The case stems from a 2010 loan taken for Rajpal’s directorial debut, Ata Pata Laapata, in 2012, which he has repeatedly failed to repay over the years.