A Delhi-based businessman, Madhav Gopal Agrawal of Murli Projects Pvt Ltd, alleges that he repeatedly pleaded and even broke down in tears before actor Rajpal Yadav to recover nearly Rs 9 crore that gTo rew out of an unpaid Rs 5 crore film loan. The dispute, born from the failure of Yadav’s ambitious film Ata Pata Laapata, has now turned into a years-long legal and emotional saga involving cheque-bounce cases, jail time, and a bitter sense of betrayal.
How a Dream Project Began With a Rs 5 Crore Loan
Back in 2010, Rajpal Yadav decided to step out of his usual comic roles and chase a long-cherished dream: directing and starring in his own film, Ata Pata Laapata. To
finance this project, he approached Delhi-based company Murli Projects Pvt Ltd, run by businessman Madhav Gopal Agrawal, and secured a loan of around Rs 5 crore.
According to Agrawal, Yadav assured him that the film was almost complete and that a timely infusion of funds would ensure its successful release. The businessman says he was introduced to Yadav through a political contact and initially refused, but emotional appeals from the actor and his wife, Radha, eventually convinced him to help.
“I Cried In Front Of Him”: The Businessman’s Side Of The Story
In a recent interview, Agrawal painted a deeply personal picture of what happened after the money changed hands. He claims he did not use spare wealth but actually borrowed money from others to raise the Rs 5 crore he gave to Yadav, which left him under heavy pressure when the repayments did not come.
Agrawal alleges that, at one point, he went to Yadav’s home and broke down in tears, telling the actor that he had put his own credibility and borrowed funds on the line to support the film. He further says that when he first declined to give the loan, Yadav’s wife sent him emotional messages, appealing to his empathy and insisting they would honour every rupee.
Why This Was A Loan, Not An Investment
A crucial point Agrawal stresses is that this was a loan agreement, not a speculative film investment. He says the written agreement clearly stated that repayment would not depend on the film’s box-office performance, censor certificate, or any other condition related to the movie’s fate.
Agrawal also notes that Yadav allegedly gave a personal guarantee and issued cheques in his own name, which, in his view, clearly distinguishes the deal from an equity-style investment where the risk is shared. He maintains that he expected timely repayment regardless of whether Ata Pata Laapata became a hit or a flop.
The Film Flops And The Cheques Start Bouncing
When Ata Pata Laapata was finally released in 2012, it failed badly at the box office and reportedly earned only a fraction of its production cost, leaving Yadav in serious financial distress. Media reports suggest the film’s budget swelled to several times the initial estimate, while collections stayed dismal, worsening the repayment crunch.
As per multiple reports, cheques issued by Yadav towards repayment to Murli Projects started bouncing, triggering criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the cheque-bounce law). Over the years, interest, penalties and legal costs allegedly pushed the dues from the original Rs 5 crore to nearly Rs 9 crore across seven cheque-bounce cases.
Supplementary Agreements, Broken Promises And A Legal War
Agrawal says that when Yadav could not pay on time, the two sides repeatedly tried to restructure the deal. He recounts that three supplementary agreements were signed and fresh cheques were issued, with new timelines and promises of repayment.
However, as per court records and media reports, those repayment commitments were not honoured to the complainant’s satisfaction, and more cheques were dishonoured, deepening the businessman’s frustration. At one point, when legendary actor Amitabh Bachchan launched the music of Ata Pata Laapata, Agrawal says he realised that under their agreement, he should have already received the film negatives and funds, and so he approached the court to stall the release.
According to Agrawal, Yadav pleaded that he could only return the money after the film was released, leading to a temporary settlement that allowed the release to go ahead—but the movie’s poor performance left the debt issue unresolved.
Conviction, Jail Time And The Court’s Tough Stand
The dispute moved through the courts over the next decade. In April 2018, a magistrate’s court in Delhi convicted Rajpal Yadav and his wife in several cheque-bounce cases related to the Murli Projects loan and sentenced Yadav to six months’ simple imprisonment. A sessions court upheld this conviction in 2019, after which Yadav approached the Delhi High Court for revision.
In June 2024, the High Court suspended his sentence on the condition that he take “sincere and genuine measures” to explore an amicable settlement with the complainant. But as time went on, judges noted repeated breaches of undertakings and missed payment deadlines, saying there was “no justification” to keep extending leniency when the liability had been admitted.
How The Amount Reached Nearly Rs 9 Crore
From the initial Rs 5 crore loan, the outstanding figure grew to about Rs 9 crore over the years, according to court observations and media reports. This escalation is attributed to cumulative interest, penalties, and the fact that there were seven cheque-bounce cases where the trial court worked out the liability of about Rs 1.35 crore in each.
Reports indicate that Yadav did make partial payments. For example, in 2025, he deposited demand drafts of Rs 75 lakh with the court, and by early 2026, his lawyer told the media that around Rs 2.5 crore had been paid in total. Even so, the High Court order in February 2026 recorded that about Rs 9 crore still remained unpaid across the cases.
Surrender To Tihar Jail And Emotional Public Appeals
On 2 February 2026, the Delhi High Court directed Yadav to surrender before the jail authorities by 4 p.m. on 4 February after rejecting his plea for more time to arrange funds. He surrendered on 5 February and was lodged in Tihar Jail to serve the six‑month sentence stemming from the cheque-bounce convictions.
In media interactions before surrendering, Yadav spoke about his financial helplessness and said he did not have the money or any other means to immediately clear the full outstanding dues. He also remarked that in the film industry “everyone is on their own,” suggesting that he had not found strong financial backing from colleagues despite his long career.
Interim Bail And Where The Case Stands Now
On 16 February 2026, the Delhi High Court granted Yadav interim bail till March 18 after his legal team told the court that he had deposited Rs 1.5 crore in the complainant company’s bank account and that he needed to attend his niece’s wedding. The court temporarily suspended his sentence, explicitly noting the fresh deposit and the personal circumstance as reasons for this limited relief.
Following his release from Tihar, Yadav publicly thanked the High Court for giving him an opportunity to be heard and reiterated that financial misfortune around Ata Pata Laapata had pushed him into this crisis. However, the larger dispute over the remaining dues continues, and the businessman maintains that a substantial amount is still unpaid despite years of promises and legal orders.
Industry Support And The Question Of Intent
While Agrawal stresses broken promises and emotional distress, some colleagues from the film industry have come out in support of Yadav’s character. Actor Padam Singh, a
Co-star from Ata Pata Laapata has publicly stated that Yadav’s intentions were pure and that he never set out to cheat anyone, but was overwhelmed by financial pressure when the film failed.
Film bodies and well‑wishers have also discussed raising funds to help him clear the remaining amount, arguing that financial ruin in high‑risk creative ventures can happen even to those who are otherwise honest. Still, the courts have underlined that compassion cannot override written undertakings and legal obligations, especially when admitted dues remain unpaid for years.
A Cautionary Tale For Both Sides
For Madhav Gopal Agrawal, the story is one of trust, emotional appeals, and a huge financial hit that he says forced him to “cry like a child” in front of a star he once believed in. For Rajpal Yadav, it is the story of a dream project that spiralled into a legal nightmare, tarnishing a career built on making people laugh.
Beyond the individual blame game, the case stands as a cautionary tale about the risks of informal film financing, the importance of clear, enforceable contracts, and the hard reality that good intentions alone cannot undo the consequences of a Rs 9 crore debt.