Mumbai: Actor Rajpal Yadav, who is currently out on interim bail in a cheque-bounce case, may have landed in legal trouble following an unexpected fallout at a film event where the complainant was allegedly denied a chance to share the stage with Amitabh Bachchan, the actor’s lawyer Bhaskar Upadhyay claimed.
Revisiting how the actor’s cheque-bounce case unfolded following the incident involving Big B, the lawyer told HT, “In September, Amitabh Bachchan stepped in for the film’s music launch and the complainant wanted to share the stage with him. Rajpal’s team said no to that as Mr Bachchan wasn’t taking any favours for his presence, and the complainant got annoyed by that. He moved to the Delhi HC in September 2012 on the basis of that agreement, asking for a stay on the film until his dues were cleared. The case was dragged till December 2012 when he deposited the first cheque of ₹60,60,350 which was honoured.”
The lawyer further shared that eventually the complainant deposited an undertaking asking to take off the stay from the film and both parties entered into a consent agreement in 2013, leading to previous agreements turning null and void.
“A fresh consent decree was passed in 2016 and as per law it is unchallengeable by either parties. The amount of ₹10.40 crores was due as per that. The complainant signed an undertaking that previous agreements will not be revived if the said amount is returned to them. The HC also said that the recovery of this money should only be done by way of execution,” he shared.
In 2016, an execution petition was initiated, and ₹1.90 crore was subsequently paid to the complainant. To settle the outstanding balance, another guarantor, Anant Dattaram, stepped in.
However, the complainant refused taking the surety.
“He offered his property valued at ₹15 crores as surety for him, asking for one month’s time to return the amount. Surprisingly, the complainant refused to take this and asked for Rajpal ji’s imprisonment for the satisfaction of the decree. The execution stated this in writing and added that since no other mode of execution is suggested, the execution was closed,” Bhaskar shared.
However, a legal anomaly arose during the course of the proceedings.
“While the execution case was going on, the complainant revived the cheques from the third supplementary agreement which was to be nulled after the consent agreement. In March 2018, based on that old agreement, the trial court convicted Rajpal ji and issued a fine of ₹11.5 crores. And then in November 2018, the execution court sentenced Rajpal ji to three-month imprisonment for the same cause of action. But both can’t go parallel,” the lawyer revealed.
In 2019, Rajpal’s legal team challenged the order in the revision court; however, a newly-appointed counsel handling the matter reportedly made a significant error.
“The new judge said they didn’t find any merit and the counsel for Rajpal ji admitted that then they are ready to pay the amount if given a chance for mediation. And the court wrote this in their observation,” Bhaskar informed that because of this development, the case continues to remain pending.
He added that, as per the latest update, they have requested the court to hear their arguments in full and decide the matter on its merits.
