Delhi High Court rejects Rajpal Yadav’s plea for more time in Rs 9 Cr Cheque Bounce case
Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to give actor Rajpal Yadav more time to pay money in a cheque bounce case and reserved its judgment. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma clearly said she would not allow any more delay when Yadav asked for 30 extra days to arrange ₹6 crore. The judge said, “No means no. I will reserve.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to give actor Rajpal Yadav more time to pay money in a cheque bounce case and reserved its judgment.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma clearly said she would not allow any more delay when Yadav asked for 30 extra days to arrange ₹6 crore. The judge said, “No means no. I will reserve (for judgment). I will not give more time,” the judge stated firmly during the proceedings.
The court also criticised Yadav and his lawyers for giving mixed statements. The judge pointed out that Yadav said he was ready to pay, but his lawyers argued differently. The court questioned why the case was still being heard if he was willing to pay.
What is the case all about?
The case was filed by Murli Projects Private Limited under the Negotiable Instruments Act after cheques issued by Yadav bounced.
In May 2024, a lower court convicted Yadav and sentenced him to six months in jail. Later, the High Court paused his sentence after he promised to settle the matter. However, the court said he did not pay the money as promised, including ₹2.5 crore in instalments. In February 2026, he was asked to surrender for not following court orders. He surrendered on February 5 and later got temporary relief after paying ₹1.5 crore.
During the hearing, advocate Avneet Singh Sikka, representing the complainant, argued that serving a jail sentence does not absolve financial liability. He pointed out that Yadav had acknowledged dues of ₹10 crore, with approximately ₹7.75 crore still pending despite partial payments made earlier.
The court explored the possibility of resolving the matter through a one-time settlement. The complainant indicated willingness to consider closure if ₹6 crore was paid promptly. Appearing via video conference, Yadav stated he would comply with court directions but cited financial difficulties, claiming he had sold five flats and suffered significant losses.
However, when he requested 30 days to arrange the funds, the court declined to grant any further time. With no immediate agreement reached, the High Court reserved its judgment, bringing the hearing to a close without settlement.