.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to grant Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav more time to clear dues in a cheque bounce case, sharply criticising his inconsistent submissions and repeated delays, before reserving its judgment in the matter, reported Bar and Bench.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma declined Yadav’s request for 30 days to pay Rs 6 crore towards settlement, stating unequivocally: “No means no. I will reserve (for judgment). I will not give more time,” according to Bar and Bench.
During the hearing, the court expressed displeasure over what it described as contradictory positions taken by Yadav and his counsel on the issue of payment. “Never think the judge is weak if the judge is nice to you,” the court remarked.
Highlighting the inconsistency, the judge said: “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.”
The case arises from a complaint filed by M/s Murli Projects Private Limited under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act over dishonoured cheques.
In May 2024, a sessions court had convicted Yadav and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment. The High Court later suspended his sentence after his counsel assured that the dispute would be settled, and the matter was referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.
However, the court noted that despite repeated assurances and adjournments, Yadav failed to deposit amounts he had undertaken to pay, including Rs 2.5 crore in instalments.
In February 2026, the High Court directed him to surrender for non-compliance. His plea seeking more time was rejected, following which he surrendered on February 5. He was later granted an interim suspension of sentence after depositing Rs 1.5 crore with the complainant.
Appearing for the complainant, advocate Avneet Singh Sikka argued that Yadav could not escape financial liability merely because he had undergone punishment. He submitted that completion of sentence does not extinguish liability, adding that the actor had admitted to not paying Rs 10 crore.
Sikka said proceedings were initiated after dues remained unpaid, and that approximately Rs 7.75 crore was still outstanding, though around Rs 2 crore had been paid earlier before the trial court.
The court explored the possibility of a one-time settlement and indicated that the dispute could be resolved if Rs 6 crore was paid within a short period, with the complainant showing willingness to consider the proposal.
Appearing via video conference, Yadav said he would comply with any directions regarding payment, while also claiming financial losses, stating he had sold five flats and suffered heavy setbacks.
However, when he sought 30 days to arrange the amount, the court refused to grant further time. With no immediate settlement reached, the High Court reserved its judgment in the case.
Source: India Today
