Rajpal Yadav, wife convicted in Rs 5 crore loan case
While convicting the actor, his company and his wife, the court said he cannot feign ignorance/repercussion of signing legal documents.delhi Updated: Apr 15, 2018 08:34 IST
A Delhi court has convicted Bollywood actor-comedian Rajpal Yadav and his wife Radha Yadav for their failure to repay a loan of Rs 5 crore taken by his company to make a movie “Ata Pata Lapata”.
Additional chief metropolitan magistrate Amit Arora found Yadav’s company Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment guilty in the case where money was taken from a Delhi businessman Rajiv Sharma as financial assistance for completion of the film.
According to the complaint, Yadav had approached Sharma’s company for a loan. Following this an agreement was executed between both the parties in 2010 where a loan of Rs 5 crore was given to the actor and his company on the guarantee given by one of his companies.
At the time of the agreement on August 8, 2012, Yadav agreed to pay Rs 11,10, 60,350 including the principal amount and the interest. Meanwhile, a dispute arose between the two parties and the matter went to the high court where Yadav gave an undertaking to repay Rs 7 crore.
However, all the seven cheques issued by the accused thereafter were dishonoured due to “insufficient funds”.
The actor, however, refuted all the charges in the court stating that he had not taken any loan from the complainant and rather the sum of money was invested by the complainant in his film. He also defended that the cheques were given as a security and hence the money was a mere investment and not a loan.
While convicting the actor, his company and his wife, the court said he cannot feign ignorance/repercussion of signing legal documents.
“He is conversant with the English language. Thus the contention raised by him that he had signed those documents only on the trust without going through its contents appears to be moonshine and frivolous in nature,” the court said.
It also found that the defence taken by the accused that the cheques were as security is contrary to the agreement signed by both the parties.