The Supreme Court on Monday reprimanded actor Rajpal Yadav for not depositing money by the deadline set in a long-running cheque-bounce dispute involving M/s Murali Projects Pvt Ltd.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana directed Yadav to deposit Rs 2 crore with the court registry by Tuesday. The matter has been listed for Wednesday as the first case.
On September 15, the court had granted Yadav two weeks to present a concrete plan for clearing the outstanding dues. That period ended on Monday, but the payment had not been made.
During the hearing, Yadav's lawyer said the complainants were not poor. Justice Joymalya Bagchi strongly objected to the remark, saying, “They may be richer than you, but they are poor to the extent you have swindled them. This arrogance needs to be put in its right place. You should know when to open your mouth. Your place is in jail.”
The bench observed that it could dismiss Yadav's appeal, but was hesitant to do so because such an order could adversely affect the complainant's ability to recover the money. It also noted that the actor had been specifically asked to make the deposit by Monday.
During the proceedings, Yadav's counsel produced a demand draft for Rs 50 lakh and said the document was being processed by the bank. The bench, however, said it could not establish whether the draft was genuine.
Senior advocate Ajit Sinha, appearing for M/s Murali Projects Pvt Ltd, accused Yadav of repeatedly disregarding court directions. He said the actor was “acting here also” and had no respect for the authority of the institution.
Details of the dispute
The case stems from financial assistance of Rs 5 crore that Yadav allegedly received from M/s Murali Projects Pvt Ltd for a film in 2010.
The complainant has said that Yadav subsequently issued seven cheques of Rs 1.05 crore each towards repayment, but all of them were dishonoured. An agreement signed in 2012 allegedly recorded that Yadav, his wife Radha and their company had agreed to repay approximately Rs 11 crore, including interest.
The dispute has continued for several years. On September 15, the Supreme Court extended Yadav's exemption from surrendering until October 5 and gave him what it described as a final opportunity to submit a payment plan.
At that hearing, the bench had criticised his conduct and said previous court orders had not been followed. Senior advocate PS Patwalia, representing Yadav, had sought two weeks to prepare a plan for settling the dues and said the actor would deposit Rs 2 crore to demonstrate his bona fides.
Patwalia had also told the court that Yadav had spent four-and-a-half months in prison and was released on bail with help from friends in the entertainment industry. Sinha said the complainant's primary concern was recovery of the money because Yadav had not fulfilled his commitments.
Delhi High Court conviction
On September 8, the Supreme Court issued notice on Yadav's plea and said he would be exempted from surrendering subject to a deposit of Rs 5 crore with its registry.
Earlier, on July 10, the Delhi High Court upheld Yadav's conviction in multiple cheque-bounce cases and sentenced him to three months in prison. It declined to condone a delay of 1,894 days, or more than five years, in filing petitions challenging the conviction.
The High Court also ordered Yadav to pay more than Rs 1 crore to the complainant in each of the seven cases. It said approximately Rs 2 crore already deposited by the actor would be adjusted against the outstanding amount and kept the sentence in abeyance for two months to enable him to approach the appellate court.
The court further directed Yadav's wife to pay a fine of around Rs 5.5 lakh to the complainant in each case. Failure to pay would result in simple imprisonment for three months.
The High Court's judgment followed revision petitions filed by Yadav and his wife against a 2019 sessions court order. That order had upheld their conviction by a magistrate in April 2018.
The magistrate had originally sentenced Yadav to six months in prison, a term that was later reduced to three months.
Follow us
