The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over what it has observed as ‘wavering’ attitude of actor Rajpal Yadav with regard to payment of dues in his cheque bounce case. The High Court on Thursday reserved its judgment in a cheque bounce case filed by a company, M/s Murli Projects Private Limited, against Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav. It has firmly said Yadav cannot be granted more time for paying dues.
During the hearing, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expressed frustration over what she described as shifting stands taken by Yadav regarding payment of the dues.“Never think the judge is weak if the judge is nice to you,” she remarked at one point during the proceedings. The observation came after the Court noted contradictions between submissions made by Yadav and the arguments advanced by his counsel.
“You are saying you are willing to pay, but your lawyers are saying that since you have already gone to jail, you will not pay. If you are willing to pay, then why am I hearing the matter? Make the payment,” she said. Yadav had sought 30 days time to pay ₹six crore and settle the dispute, but the judge refused to grant the same.
“No means no. I will reserve (for judgment). I will not give more time,” Justice Sharma said. In May 2024, a sessions court had convicted and sentenced Yadav to six months' jail in a cheque bounce case. The Delhi High Court later suspended his sentence after his counsel assured the court that the dispute would be settled. The matter was even referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.
However, the court later observed that despite repeated assurances and several adjournments sought for settlement, the actor failed to make the promised payments.The High Court noted that Yadav had not deposited amounts he had assured the court he would pay, including ₹2.5 crore that he had sought permission to pay in instalments. In February 2026, the High Court directed Yadav to surrender before jail authorities for failing to comply with its earlier orders. His subsequent plea seeking extension of time to surrender was also rejected.
Yadav ultimately surrendered on February 5 and remained in jail until the High Court later granted him interim suspension of sentence after he deposited ₹1.5 crore with the complainant. During the hearing on Thursday , the counsel for the complainant-company, advocate Avneet Singh Sikka, argued that Yadav had effectively accepted his conviction and could not avoid liability merely because he had undergone punishment.
Follow us
