The Supreme Court on Monday took strong exception to Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav evading his undertaking to make payments in multiple cheque bounce cases against him [Rajpal Naurang Yadav & Anr v. M/S Murli Projects Pvt Ltd].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana noted that Yadav had undertaken to deposit ₹5 crore with the court registry by Monday but did not comply with the same.

Yadav produced a copy of a demand draft of ₹50 lakh and told the Court that the same is being processed by the bank.

"Is this genuine or not? We don't know," the bench said.

"They are in the bank. They are processing it," Yadav's counsel said.

"He is a film actor. He is acting here also. He has no respect for the majesty of the institution," the counsel for the complainant said.

"They (Complainant) are not poor," Yadav's counsel said.

"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," Justice Bagchi shot back.

The Court directed that the payment should be made by tomorrow and listed the case for hearing tomorrow as the first case.

The case concerns a ₹5 crore amount received by Yadav and wife from a private entity named Murli Projects in connection with a film being produced by Yadav.

The parties entered into four agreements as the film could not be completed within the agreed timelines.

Under the third agreement, Yadav gave eight security cheques to Murli Projects. The third agreement was subsequently replaced by a fourth agreement, described as a consent agreement dated April 21, 2013. According to Yadav’s plea, the consent agreement provided for the return of the eight security cheques and issuance of four fresh cheques of ₹10 crore each.

Yadav alleges that Murli Projects did not return the eight security cheques and instead presented seven of them, which were dishonoured. This led to the criminal complaints against Yadav and his wife.

In May 2024, a sessions court convicted Yadav and sentenced him to six months' jail.

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 High 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 an 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 an interim suspension of sentence after he deposited ₹1.5 crore with the complainant.

However, since he failed to deposit the remaining amount despite several undertakings, the Court sentenced him to imprisonment for three months.

This has now been challenged before the Supreme Court.

According to Yadav's plea, the subsequent consent agreement made the earlier cheques invalid and the complaints based on those cheques were, therefore, not maintainable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Court had on September 8 exempted him from surrendering subject to his depositing the money by September 9.

On September 15, the Court granted him extension of two more weeks and asked him to deposit the money by October 5.

When the matter was taken up today, the Court was told that the amount is yet to be deposited.

"The banks were closed for three or four days," Yadav's counsel sought to explain.

However, the bench was not impressed.

"Why? You were given 16 days on September 15. Today we are on October 5. You are out of time by seven days. You could have filed an application seeking extension of time," the Court said.

"The total amount is ₹7.5 crore. He should be liable for contempt of this Court," the lawyer for the complainant said.

However, the Court did not dismiss Yadav's appeal since the complainant might not get the money then.

"We have tried to ignore the way he is treating us to ensure and secure your money. Or should we just give him what he deserves, a dismissal? We want to dismiss it, but we also want to balance equities to ensure that your client gets some money," the bench remarked.

It then proceeded to list the matter for compliance on Tuesday.

"Let the payment be made by tomorrow. List the matter day after tomorrow as the first item on the board," the Court directed.

[Read Live Coverage]