Court refuses to give more time to Rajpal Yadav to pay dues in check bounce case: No means no
The Delhi High Court refused to grant additional time to actor Rajpal Yadav to pay Rs 6 crore in a check bounce case, criticizing his changing stand on the agreement and repeated non-compliance.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to grant Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav more time to repay dues in a check bounce case, sharply criticizing his inconsistent submissions and repeated delays before reserving its judgment in the matter, Bar and Bench reported.
Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma rejected Yadav’s request for 30 days’ time to pay Rs 6 crore as settlement, and categorically said: “No means no. I will reserve (the decision). I will not give any more time,” according to Bar and Bench.
❮❯
During the hearing, the court expressed displeasure over the contradictory stands taken by Yadav and his lawyer on the payment issue. The court remarked, “If the judge is good to you, never think that the judge is weak.”
Highlighting the inconsistency, the judge said, “You are saying that you are willing to pay, but your lawyer is 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 case? Pay.”
Conviction, prison sentence and partial compliance
The case arises out of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by M/s Murali Projects Pvt. Ltd. on dishonor of cheque.
In May 2024, a sessions court convicted Yadav and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. The High Court later suspended his sentence after his lawyer assured that the dispute would be resolved and the case was referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.
However, the court said that despite repeated assurances and postponements, Yadav failed to deposit the amount paid in instalments, including Rs 2.5 crore.
In February 2026, the High Court directed him to surrender if he did not comply. His plea seeking more time was rejected, after which he surrendered on 5 February. He was later given interim suspension of sentence after the complainant deposited Rs 1.5 crore.
Jail sentence will not eliminate liability: Complainant
Appearing for the complainant, advocate Avneet Singh Sikka argued that Yadav cannot escape financial liability merely because he has served the sentence. Completing the sentence does not extinguish the liability, he said, adding that the actor has admitted not paying Rs 10 crore.
Sikka said the proceedings were initiated after the dues were not paid and about Rs 7.75 crore was still outstanding, although about Rs 2 crore had already been paid before the trial court.
Settlement talks failed, court reserved the decision
The court explored the possibility of a lump sum settlement and indicated that the dispute could be resolved if the complainant showed willingness to consider the proposal that Rs 6 crore be paid within a short period.
Appearing through video conference, Yadav said he would comply with any instructions regarding payment, and also claimed financial losses, saying he had sold five flats and had suffered a huge blow.
However, when he asked for 30 days time to arrange the amount, the court refused to give more time. As there was no immediate solution, the High Court reserved its decision in the matter.