The Delhi High Court on Thursday came down strongly on actor Rajpal Yadav, observing that he had delayed payment owed to a complainant company for several years and repeatedly failed to honour a settlement despite giving assurances to the court. The court made the remarks while hearing Yadav’s plea seeking suspension of sentence.
The court issued notice to the respondent on the bail plea filed by the actor and fixed the matter for hearing on Monday.
A single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that Yadav had earlier acknowledged his liability and had expressly assured that the dues would be cleared. However, the court said those assurances were not followed by action, and the payment remained unpaid for a prolonged period. The judge observed that such conduct reflected a disregard for the settlement process and the authority of the court.
During the hearing, counsel for Yadav sought suspension of the sentence on the ground of a marriage in the actor’s family, urging the court to show leniency. The plea, however, met with scepticism from the bench, which pointed out that personal circumstances could not eclipse a consistent pattern of non-compliance. The court underscored that the actor had been granted sufficient time in the past to meet his obligations but had failed to do so.
The case arises from a financial dispute in which the complainant company alleged that Yadav had defaulted on repayment despite entering into a settlement. According to the court’s observations, the actor had not only admitted the liability earlier but had also committed to a payment schedule that was subsequently ignored.
The episode has drawn a muted and cautious response from the film industry, with few public statements coming out in support of the actor. While some colleagues are understood to have expressed personal sympathy in private, there has been no visible collective backing, reflecting an industry tendency to distance itself from legal and financial controversies.
Trade observers say the silence also underscores a growing recognition within the industry that contractual and financial disputes are treated as strictly legal matters, where personal goodwill or professional standing offers little shield from judicial scrutiny.
The High Court’s remarks signal a firm judicial stance against litigants who seek repeated relief without fulfilling their commitments. The court indicated that suspension of sentence is a discretionary relief and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, particularly where the record shows prolonged delay and breach of undertakings given to the court.
The matter highlights a broader judicial concern over misuse of settlements and delays in financial compliance, even by high-profile individuals. The court’s approach suggests that celebrity status or personal events will not outweigh the obligation to respect settlements and court orders, especially when non-payment persists over several years.