Rajpal Yadav Released on Interim Bail by Delhi High Court in Financial Dispute
Comedian and actor Rajpal Yadav has been granted interim bail by the Delhi High Court, leading to his release from Tihar Jail. This development comes in a case initiated by businessman Madhav Gopal Aggarwal, with legal proceedings tracing back to a loan agreement for Yadav's film 'Ata Pata Laapata'. His lawyer, Bhaskar Upadhyay, disclosed that the origins of the case are connected to an incident involving Bollywood legend Amitabh Bachchan.
Loan Agreement and Legal Turn for Film 'Ata Pata Laapata'
According to Bhaskar Upadhyay, businessman Madhav Gopal Aggarwal provided Rajpal Yadav with a loan of Rs 5 crores to finance the production of the film 'Ata Pata Laapata'. The two parties entered into a primary agreement, followed by three supplementary agreements, with the final terms established by August 2012. This final deal stipulated that Yadav would issue five cheques, scheduled to be cleared starting from December 2012. However, the situation escalated legally after the film's music launch in September 2012, which ultimately triggered the ongoing case.
Dispute Over Amitabh Bachchan's Music Launch Involvement
In an interview with Hindustan Times, Bhaskar Upadhyay elaborated on the conflict. He stated, "In September, Amitabh Bachchan participated in the film's music launch, and the complainant desired to share the stage with him. Rajpal's team declined this request, as Mr. Bachchan was not accepting any favors for his appearance. This refusal angered the complainant." Subsequently, in September 2012, Aggarwal approached the Delhi High Court, seeking a stay on the film's release until his dues were settled. The case persisted until December 2012, when Yadav deposited the first cheque of Rs 60,60,350, which was successfully honored.
Consent Agreement and Subsequent Legal Developments
The lawyer further explained that Madhav Aggarwal later submitted an undertaking requesting the removal of the stay on the film. Following this, both parties signed a consent agreement in 2013, which declared all previous agreements null and void. A fresh consent decree was issued in 2016, and under legal provisions, this decree is considered unchallengeable by either side. The agreed amount due was Rs 10.40 crores. The complainant signed an undertaking stating that the previous agreements would not be revived if this sum was repaid. The High Court also directed that recovery of the money should proceed solely through execution proceedings.
Guarantor Offers and Execution Proceedings
In 2016, an execution petition was filed, and Rs 1.90 crores were paid to the complainant. For the remaining balance, another guarantor, Mr. Anant Dattaram, intervened—documents confirming this are available with HT City. However, the complainant refused to accept this guarantee. Bhaskar Upadhyay shared that he offered his property, valued at Rs 15 crores, as surety, requesting one month to return the amount. Surprisingly, the complainant rejected this offer and instead demanded Rajpal Yadav's imprisonment to satisfy the decree. The execution court noted this in writing and closed the execution case, citing no alternative mode of execution suggested.
Conviction and Fines in Trial Court
An unusual twist occurred during the legal proceedings. "While the execution case was ongoing, the complainant revived cheques from the third supplementary agreement, which was supposed to be nullified after the consent agreement," Bhaskar stated. In March 2018, based on this old agreement, the trial court convicted Rajpal Yadav and imposed a fine of Rs 11.5 crores. Then, in November 2018, the execution court sentenced Yadav to three months imprisonment for the same cause of action. Bhaskar emphasized that these parallel actions are legally inconsistent.
Challenges in Revision Court and Current Status
In 2019, Yadav's legal team approached the revision court to contest the earlier ruling. However, when a new lawyer joined the case, the situation took an unexpected turn. "The new judge indicated they found no merit, and the counsel for Rajpal Yadav admitted readiness to pay the amount if given a mediation opportunity. The court recorded this observation," Bhaskar explained. This development left the case unresolved, prompting the team to request the court to hear their arguments and decide the matter based on its merits.
