Bollywood actor has once again landed in legal trouble as the took a strict stance during the hearing of his ongoing ₹9 crore cheque bounce case. The court openly expressed displeasure over the actor’s conduct, raising serious concerns about inconsistencies in his statements.

Court’s Stern Warning Sparks Attention

During the proceedings, Justice made a strong remark, stating, “Never mistake a judge for being weak simply because they are exercising leniency towards you.” This observation came after the court noticed contradictions between Rajpal Yadav’s claims and the arguments presented by his legal counsel. The verdict in the matter has now been reserved.

Confusion Over Payment Commitment

The hearing took a tense turn when Rajpal Yadav expressed his willingness to repay the dues, while his lawyer argued that since the actor had already served a prison sentence, he was no longer obligated to make the payment. The court questioned this contradiction and asked why the matter was not being resolved if the actor was ready to pay.

When Yadav requested an additional 30 days to arrange ₹6 crore, the court firmly rejected the plea, stating, “No means no; no further time will be granted.” This clearly reflects the judiciary’s strict approach in the case.

Background of the Case

The legal dispute originated from a cheque bounce complaint filed by . In May 2024, a lower court had convicted Rajpal Yadav and sentenced him to six months in prison. Later, the Delhi High Court stayed the sentence after his legal team assured that the pending dues would be cleared.

However, despite multiple opportunities granted by the court, Yadav reportedly failed to fulfill his commitment and did not deposit the agreed amount.

Crores Still Pending, Settlement Talks Ongoing

As per reports, around ₹7.75 crore is still pending, although a partial payment has already been made. The court had earlier proposed a one-time settlement of ₹6 crore, which the complainant seemed willing to accept. Appearing via video conferencing, Rajpal Yadav told the court that he has faced financial losses, sold several of his properties, and is even ready to return to jail if required. He assured the court of his intention to comply with its directions.

With tensions running high and the court taking a no-nonsense approach, all eyes are now on the final verdict. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the actor’s legal standing and financial future.