A three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice, alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, issued notice returnable on September 15, 2026, making his exemption strictly contingent upon depositing ₹5 Crore with the Supreme Court Registry by Wednesday.
The Eleventh-Hour Plea: Dodging the September 10 Deadline
The matter was orally mentioned before the top court by Yadav’s counsel after the Delhi High Court’s July 10, 2026 judgment had upheld his conviction and three-month simple imprisonment across seven complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.
The Impending Jail Deadline: The High Court had dismissed criminal revision petitions filed by Yadav, his wife Radha Rajpal Yadav, and their production company, directing him to surrender by September 10, 2026, to serve the concurrent sentence. The Apex Court’s Order: Intervening just 48 hours before the surrender deadline, the bench ruled:
“Subject to deposit of Rs. 5 crores by the petitioners with the registry of this court by tomorrow, they are granted exemption from surrendering.”
Notice Issued: The Supreme Court issued a conditional notice on his Special Leave Petition (SLP) and scheduled the formal hearing for Tuesday, September 15, 2026.
Origins of the 14-Year Legal Dispute
The protracted legal battle traces its origins back to 2010, linked to Yadav’s directorial debut feature film, Ata Pata Laapata (released in 2012):
The Financial Advance: Financier firm Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. advanced ₹5 Crore to Yadav's production banner for the completion of the film.
The Cheque Dishonour: As production and release faced delays, multiple supplementary agreements were drawn up. When the post-dated security cheques issued to the financier were presented for encashment, they bounced due to insufficient funds, prompting Murli Projects to lodge seven criminal complaints under the NI Act.
Escalating Dues: While the original loan was ₹5 Crore, mounting interest, penalties, and protracted litigation pushed the outstanding claims to nearly ₹9 Crore over the years.
Trial Court Conviction: In April 2018, a Delhi magistrate court convicted Yadav and sentenced him to six months in jail, which was subsequently reduced to three months by the appellate court and affirmed by the Delhi High Court.
The Legal Defense: The 'Gimpex' Precedent
Before the Supreme Court, Yadav’s legal team argued that the original complaints could not be sustained in light of subsequent settlement deeds:
Subsequent Settlements: The defense argued that the parties entered into a consent agreement on April 21, 2013, agreeing to a full and final settlement of ₹10.40 Crore (under which fresh post-dated cheques were given and ₹40 Lakh was paid via RTGS). Under this agreement, the older eight security cheques were supposed to be returned.
The Landmark Precedent (Gimpex Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Goel): Yadav's counsel cited the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling which held that once parties execute a formal settlement agreement, the original complaint concerning the dishonour of earlier cheques stands subsumed and cannot continue; a fresh cause of action arises only if the new cheques issued under the settlement dishonour.
Prior Payments on Record: Yadav's counsel placed on record that ₹2.25 Crore had already been deposited and released to Murli Projects during earlier proceedings, which the High Court had directed to be adjusted against the fine.
Trade Verdict:
The Supreme Court's intervention offers Rajpal Yadav a critical breathing window, but attaching a steep ₹5 Crore cash deposit on a 24-hour turnaround highlights that the judiciary's tolerance for protracted delays in commercial cheque-dishonour cases remains exceptionally low. All eyes now turn to the Supreme Court Registry today to see whether the actor complies with the financial condition to secure his liberty ahead of the September 15 hearing.
