No means no: Delhi High Court denies Rajpal Yadav more time to pay dues in cheque bounce case

The Delhi 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.

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,” the Court 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,” said the Court.

Yadav sought 30 days time to pay ₹6 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 today, 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.

“The counsel yesterday said that "since I was given maximum punishment I cannot be asked to pay. Answer lies in CPC. Not enough reason to extinguish liability that punishment is complete. They say that because a consent decree was passed the third supplementary’s agreement was subsumed. It is their own admission that they have not paid ₹10 crores,” he argued.

Sikka added that the complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the amounts remained unpaid.

He added that approximately ₹7.75 crore remained unpaid, though around ₹2 crore had earlier been paid before the trial court.

The Court then explored the possibility of a one-time settlement and asked the complainant if a reduced amount would be acceptable. Sikka indicated that he had instructions and was willing to consider such a proposal.

Appearing through video-conference, Yadav told the Court that he would comply with any directions passed regarding payment.

“No problem that I was punished for my wrong. Whatever is directed by the judge about payment, I will follow,” he said.

However, he also claimed to have suffered significant financial losses.

“They have taken ₹17 crore from me. My five flats have had to be sold. I am ready to go to court again. I am not emotional, send me to jail five more times,” argued Yadav.

During the hearing, the Court suggested that the dispute could be settled if ₹6 crore was paid within a short period. The complainant indicated willingness to accept the amount.

When Yadav sought 30 days’ time to arrange the money, the Court declined the request.

As settlement discussions did not conclude, the Court ultimately reserved the matter for judgment.

[Read Live Coverage]