The Delhi High Court on Thursday reserved its judgment in a cheque bounce case filed by M/s Murli Projects Private Limited against actor Rajpal Yadav, after sharp exchanges during the hearing over delayed payments and inconsistent submissions.
Background of the Case
The matter arises from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, dealing with dishonour of cheques due to insufficient funds.
In May 2024, a sessions court had convicted Yadav and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. The High Court later suspended the sentence after assurances of settlement and referred the dispute to mediation.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds Borrowers’ Rights, Cancels SARFAESI Auction After Full Loan Repayment
However, despite multiple opportunities, the Court noted that promised payments were not fully made. Around ₹7.75 crore is stated to remain unpaid, though partial payments were made earlier.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expressed concern over what the Court described as changing positions taken by the actor.
“Never think the judge is weak if the judge is nice to you,” the bench remarked during the hearing.
The Court pointed out contradictions between Yadav’s personal statements and his counsel’s submissions.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds Junior Engineers’ Right to NFU Pay Upgrade, Dismisses Centre’s Appeal
“You are saying you are willing to pay, but your lawyers are saying you will not pay… If you are willing, then make the payment,” the Court observed.
The complainant’s counsel argued that completion of a jail sentence does not erase financial liability, stating,
“It is not enough to say punishment is complete. The liability still remains.”
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds Hereditary Succession in Dargah Dispute, Dismisses Appeal Over Sajjadanashin Claim
The Court explored a possible one-time settlement of ₹6 crore, which the complainant indicated willingness to accept.
Yadav, appearing via video conference, said, “Whatever is directed by the judge about payment, I will follow,” while also referring to financial difficulties.
When Yadav sought 30 days’ time to arrange funds, the Court declined.
“No means no. I will reserve for judgment,” Justice Sharma said, reserving the matter after settlement discussions failed to conclude.
Case Title: M/s Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajpal Yadav
