20 February,2026 04:38 PM IST | Mumbai | mid-day online correspondent
Rajpal Yadav and Amitabh Bachchan
Actor Rajpal Yadav, who was recently granted interim bail by the Delhi High Court from Tihar jail in the Rs 9 crore cheque bounce case, continues to make headlines as newer developments in the case emerge. A complaint was reportedly filed against him by businessman Madhav Gopal Aggarwal. Now, the actor's lawyer has shared insights into the case. Interestingly, Bhaskar Upadhyay, the lawyer, revealed that the case originated after an incident involving actor Amitabh Bachchan.
Bhaskar told Hindustan Times that Madhav had loaned Rs 5 crores to Rajpal Yadav for his film Ata Pata Laapata, wherein both of them had signed an agreement followed by three supplemental agreements till August 2012. According to the latest document, Rajpal had issued five cheques to the businessman, which had to be cashed starting from December 2012. However, it was the music launch of the film, which took place back in September 2012, that started the current lawsuit.
"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 Rs 60,60,350, which was honoured," Bhaskar revealed.
The lawyer further stated that eventually Madhav deposited an undertaking asking to take off the stay from the film, following which both parties entered into a consent agreement in 2013. He claims that, according to the new consent agreement, all previous agreements were to be null and void. "A fresh consent decree was passed in 2016, and as per law, it is unchallengeable by either party. The amount of â¹10.40 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," the lawyer shared.
The execution petition was reportedly filed in 2016, and Rs 1.90 crores were paid to the complainant. For the remaining amount, another guarantor, Mr Anant Dattaram, had come on board. However, the complainant allegedly refused to take the surety. Bhaskar adds, "He offered his property valued at Rs 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."
However, revealing an anomaly, Bhaskar shared, "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 Rs 11.5 crores. And then in November 2018, the execution court sentenced Rajpal ji to three months' imprisonment for the same cause of action. But both can't go parallel."
Rajpal's team reportedly challenged that order in 2019 in the revision court; however, there was a new counsel on board who caused a blunder, according to Bhaskar. "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 informs, adding that due to that, the case is still going on, and as per the latest development, they have asked the court to listen to their side as well and take the case on merit.
