Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav is once again in legal trouble as the Delhi High Court has reserved its verdict in a high-profile cheque bounce case against him. The case, which has been ongoing for some time, took a dramatic turn during the latest hearing, where emotions ran high and the court expressed strong displeasure over the proceedings. The matter was heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who had earlier granted Rajpal Yadav a final chance to settle the dispute.
Rajpal Yadav
Court Hearing On Rajpal Yadav Case
Despite multiple efforts to reach a mutual agreement, both parties failed to arrive at a resolution. During the hearing on April 2, the court even allowed a brief recess for negotiations. However, the discussions did not yield any result, prompting the court to withdraw its earlier interim order and reserve its final judgment. The hearing witnessed tense moments as Rajpal Yadav became emotional while presenting his side.
Rajpal Yadav
Also Read: Chaudhary Aslam’s Wife Reacts to Sanjay Dutt’s Performance In Dhurandhar, Calls It ‘Incredibly Real’
The judge, however, was not pleased and reprimanded the actor for wasting the court’s time. Justice Sharma made it clear that judicial leniency should not be mistaken for weakness. The court also questioned the actor’s stance, pointing out inconsistencies between his willingness to pay and statements made by his legal team outside the courtroom.
Rajpal Yadav
According to the opposing counsel, Advocate Avneet Singh Sikka, Rajpal Yadav still owes ₹7.75 crore. During negotiations, the lender’s side expressed willingness to settle the matter for ₹6 crore, while the actor’s counsel claimed the actual liability was closer to ₹5.75 crore. Despite appearing open to settlement initially, Rajpal Yadav reportedly hesitated when asked to commit to a lump sum payment. He requested 30 days’ time, which the court firmly rejected.
Rajpal Yadav
In a dramatic moment, Rajpal Yadav told the court that he had already suffered significant financial losses and even sold multiple properties to repay dues. He added that he was willing to face further imprisonment if necessary. The court immediately intervened, cautioning him against emotional arguments and reiterating the need for clarity and commitment in financial settlements.