Supreme Court Raps Actor Rajpal Yadav Over Unpaid Dues

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on actor Rajpal Yadav for failing to honour his undertaking to deposit money towards dues owed to a private firm in a long-running series of cheque-bounce cases.

On September 15, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana had given the actor a final two-week opportunity to submit a concrete proposal for clearing the outstanding amount and directed him to deposit Rs 2 crore with the apex court registry.

On Monday, the court took exception to the fact that no payment had been made even after the expiry of the two-week period.

“They (complainant) are not poor,” Yadav’s counsel said during the hearing.

Justice Bagchi responded: “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 top court directed that the payment be made by Tuesday and listed the matter as the first case for hearing on Wednesday.

The court said it could dismiss Yadav’s appeal but was reluctant to do so as that might jeopardise the complainant’s chances of recovering the money. It noted that Yadav had been directed to make the payment by Monday but had failed to comply.

Yadav’s counsel produced a copy of a demand draft for Rs 50 lakh and submitted that it was being processed by the bank.

“Is this genuine or not? We don’t know,” the court said.

When counsel said the demand draft was with the bank and was being processed, the complainant’s lawyer accused the actor of repeatedly failing to comply with court directions.

“He is a film actor. He is acting here also. He has no respect for the majesty of the institution,” senior advocate Ajit Sinha, appearing for the complainant, said.

The complainant alleged that in 2013, Yadav tendered seven cheques of Rs 1.05 crore each towards settlement of financial assistance of Rs 5 crore extended to him for a film in 2010. The cheques were dishonoured, the firm alleged.

According to the complainant, an agreement between the parties in 2012 stated that Yadav, his wife and their company had agreed to repay around Rs 11 crore, including interest.

The top court had on September 15 extended his exemption from surrendering till October 5.

“He is perfect at doing drama... Earlier orders of the court have not been complied with,” the apex court had said, adding that Yadav’s conduct did not inspire confidence but that a final opportunity would be granted to him.

Appearing for Yadav, senior advocate P.S. Patwalia had sought two weeks to come up with a concrete proposal to clear the dues and said he would deposit Rs 2 crore to establish his bona fides.

Patwalia said Yadav had spent four-and-a-half months in prison and that his friends in the entertainment industry had helped bail him out.

Sinha, appearing for complainant M/s Murali Projects Pvt Ltd, said the firm was concerned with recovering its money as Yadav had not honoured his commitments.

On September 8, the top court issued notice on Yadav’s plea and said that, subject to the deposit of Rs 5 crore with the registry, he would be exempted from surrendering.

On July 10, the Delhi High Court upheld Yadav’s conviction in multiple cheque-bounce cases and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment.