© 2026 nimisham.in

Rajpal Yadav had borrowed ₹5 crore from M/s Murali Projects Pvt Ltd in 2010 for his directorial debut film, Ata Pata Laapata. However, the film turned out to be a box office flop. Rajpal failed to repay the dues, and with the accumulating interest, the outstanding amount eventually increased to nearly ₹9 crore. This led to a prolonged legal battle. In 2018, a magistrate court convicted Rajpal and his wife, Radha, in the case and sentenced them to six months in jail. In 2019, the sessions court upheld the conviction,
Rajpal Yadav had borrowed ₹5 crore from M/s Murali Projects Pvt Ltd in 2010 for his directorial debut film, Ata Pata Laapata. However, the film turned out to be a box office flop. Rajpal failed to repay the dues, and with the accumulating interest, the outstanding amount eventually increased to nearly ₹9 crore. This led to a prolonged legal battle.
In 2018, a magistrate court convicted Rajpal and his wife, Radha, in the case and sentenced them to six months in jail. In 2019, the sessions court upheld the conviction, following which Yadav approached the Delhi High Court in appeal. In June 2024, the High Court temporarily suspended his sentence and directed him to take “sincere and genuine measures" to repay the nearly ₹9 crore dues. However, on February 2, the court ordered him to surrender. On February 5, he surrendered and remained in jail for a few days. Later, on February 16, he was granted interim bail after depositing ₹1.5 crore.
On July 10, the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and also imposed a ₹1.05 crore fine in each case, amounting to ₹7.35 crore. His wife, Radha Rajpal Yadav, was ordered to pay a fine of over ₹5 lakh in each case.
According to the court, Yadav had given multiple undertakings assuring payment of the amount involved in the case but failed to honour them despite being granted repeated opportunities. "Opportunities were granted to honour the settlement. He [Yadav] and his counsel made several statements and assurances, and despite these repeated opportunities and assurances, he failed to honour the undertakings," the court observed, Bar and Bench reported.