Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav is once again in legal trouble, with the Delhi High Court reserving its verdict in a check bounce case filed by a private company.
Rajpal Yadav faces new legal challenge: Delhi High Court reserves verdict in Rs. 6 crore check bounce dispute
The case was heard on Thursday, where the court appeared dissatisfied with the actor’s changing stance regarding payment of dues. The judge indicated that although Yadav claimed he was ready to pay, his legal team’s arguments suggested otherwise, creating confusion about his actual position.
During the proceedings, the court questioned why the matter was still being debated if the actor was indeed willing to settle the amount. When Yadav asked for 30 days’ time to arrange the money, the judge refused to grant additional time. 6 crore, making it clear that there will be no further delay.
The case dates back to 2024, when a sessions court had found Yadav guilty in a check bounce case and sentenced him to six months in jail. The High Court later stayed his sentence after he assured that he would settle the dispute economically, even referring the matter to arbitration for a possible resolution.
However, the situation deteriorated when the court observed that several assurances given by the actor were not fulfilled. Despite seeking time on several occasions, Yadav allegedly failed to deposit the required amount, including the significant amount which he had proposed to pay in instalments.
In early 2026, the court took a tough stance, directing him to surrender due to non-compliance of its orders. His plea for more time was rejected, leading to his surrender in February. He remained in custody until he got temporary relief after depositing ₹1.5 crore with the complainant.
During the latest hearing, the company’s legal representative argued that completing the jail sentence does not cancel the liability to repay the pending amount. It was also reported that a large portion of the agreed money has still not been paid, with the outstanding reportedly amounting to around Rs. Rs 7.75 crore even after first payment.
The court explored the possibility of resolving the case through a lump sum settlement and suggested a lower amount of Rs. 6 crores. The complainant was open to this offer and indicated that he would close the case if the amount was paid immediately.
Yadav, appearing through video conference, said he would comply with any direction issued by the court regarding payment. Also, he claimed that he has suffered huge financial losses, mentioning that he has already paid a huge amount of money and even sold several properties to manage his obligations.
Despite these claims, the court stuck to its stand and refused to grant more time for payment. With both sides unable to reach a final agreement during the hearing, the court decided to reserve its judgment, bringing the high-profile case to a turning point.
