New Delhi

Despite its 4.3/10 rating on IMDb and its lacklustre run at the box office, the 2012 comedy film ‘Ata Pata Laapata’ appears to have been far more costly for actor Rajpal Yadav than its performance suggested.

The actor informed the Supreme Court on Wednesday, appearing personally in a cheque-bounce case he’s facing, arising from the film’s production, how a  Rs 5-crore financial dispute had turned into a years-long ordeal for him, one that, he said, had drained him of Rs 22 crore.

The ‘Bhool Bhulaiyaa’ actor said he had done around 200-250 films but claimed that he had also suffered losses of around Rs 200-250 crore over the years as a professional actor. He said Ata Pata Laapata alone left Rs 17 crore of his money stuck.

“Sir, pranam karta hoon. 200-250 filmein ki hain. Pichhle 13 saal mein 200-250 crore ka nuksaan bhi kar chuka hoon. Ata Pata Laapata mein mera Rs 17 crore dooba.”

(Sir, my respects. I have done 200-250 films. In the last 13 years, I have suffered losses of Rs 200-250 crore. Rs 17 crore of mine was sunk in Ata Pata Laapata.)

Yadav also informed the bench that the film’s release was disrupted after a press conference was held against him.

“Mere khilaaf press conference ki gayi. Meri film ko stall kiya gaya. Woh 1,200 theatres mein release honi thi, ek theatre mein release nahin ho payi.”

(A press conference was held against me. My film was stalled. It was supposed to release in 1,200 theatres, but it could not release in even one.)

He described the dispute as having consequences far beyond the original loan he’d taken. “Yeh Merchant of Venice wala case hai, huzoor. Lekin total Rs 22 crore tha. Rs 5 crore ne mere Rs 17 crore ko 2013 se mitti mein mila diya.” (This is a Merchant of Venice kind of case, Your Lordship. But the total was ₹22 crore. That ₹5 crore buried my Rs 17 crore since 2013.)

As Yadav spoke to a bench led by CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, his counsel did reassure the court that the actor was getting back on track, signing films and trying to revive his professional career after years of litigation. 

The court had been dealing with the immediate question of compliance. Yadav had assured the bench that he would deposit ₹2 crore towards the dues.

He produced a demand draft of Rs 1.15 crore. The remaining Rs 85 lakh, his counsel said, would be paid through the sale of an ancestral property. The prospective buyer was also present in court to demonstrate that the payment would be made.

The property, according to Yadav, is worth around Rs 30 crore and is being sold to clear the liability.

Yadav said the original Rs 5-crore amount had subsequently been settled at Rs 8 crore.

“Rs 5 crore ka Rs 8 crore tay hua tha. Main last line bolunga.”

(The Rs 5 crore was settled at ₹8 crore. I will say the last line.)

He then said the dispute had damaged his professional standing and prevented him from moving on.

“Rs 5 crore toh main 2012 mein hi bhar raha tha. Lekin is Rs 5 crore ne mere Rs 22 crore duba diye. Pichhle 16 saal mein branding tabah hui aur meri badnami hui.” (I was ready to pay the Rs 5 crore back in 2012 itself. But this Rs 5 crore drowned my Rs 22 crore. In the last 16 years, my branding has been destroyed and I have been defamed.)

Yadav also recalled his relationship with the complainant when the deal was made. He said the complainant was his friend at the time and had assured him that Rs 5 crore was insignificant for him. 

“2012 mein mere dost the. Bole, main hazaar-dedh hazaar crore ka aadmi hoon, Rs 5 crore kahan aata hai, kahan jaata hai… Phir bole, ab tumhe Court mein ragad dunga.” (In 2012, he was my friend. He said, ‘I am a man worth Rs 1,000-1,500 crore, what is Rs 5 crore to me, where does it come and where does it go?’ … Then he said, ‘Now I will drag you through the courts.’)

Yadav’s addressed the bench after the Court had heard his counsels and had accepted his assurance today to pay his Rs 2 crore dues. The CJI asked whether he was working on a new film.

“Kuch naya bana rahe ho nahi?” the CJI asked.

Yadav said he had been willing to repay the amount from the beginning. “Main 2012 mein hi bhar raha tha… Rs 5 crore ne mere Rs 22 crore dubo diye.” (I was ready to pay it back in 2012 itself… the Rs 5 crore drowned my Rs 22 crore.)

The CJI, however, urged the actor to look ahead and return to making films. “Make a nice movie and entertain the people”, the CJI said. 

Yadav said the ordeal itself had given him an idea for a film, saying he and his team had even thought of a title for the episode.

The legal battle traces back to 2010, when Yadav took a loan of around Rs.5 crore from Murli Projects Pvt Ltd for the production of Ata Pata Laapata, his directorial venture.

The comedy film failed to perform as expected. The repayment dispute subsequently turned into cheque-bounce proceedings after cheques issued towards repayment were dishonoured. Interest and other charges added to the liability, has dragged the litigation for years.

The Delhi High Court eventually upheld Yadav’s conviction in the cheque-bounce cases and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment in each of the seven cases. The High Court also took note of his repeated failure to comply with payment commitments.

Yadav then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court order. The top court granted him relief while directing him to make payments towards the outstanding amount.

But the relief came with repeated warnings.

On September 15, the Supreme Court gave Yadav a final two-week opportunity to deposit Rs 2 crore and place a concrete repayment plan before it. The court’s indulgence was aimed at securing the complainant’s money.

When the matter returned, the court came down more sharply on Yadav over his failure to comply with the earlier direction. It questioned his conduct and warned of the consequences if he continued to default.

On Wednesday, Yadav appeared personally before the court and sought to demonstrate that he was finally acting on those directions. He produced the Rs 1.15-crore demand draft, while assuring court to also make good the remaining Rs 85 lakhs after selling his personal property to a buyer, who was also present in Court. The Court has accepted his offer. 

Like the two earlier hearings in the case, Wednesday’s proceedings also saw the court warn Yadav over his failure to comply with its payment directions.

At one point, Justice Joymalya Bagchi came down heavily on Yadav and warned that the three-month sentence imposed by the Delhi High Court was nothin compared to what could follow in view of his conduct. The judge warned that if his counsel’s would attempt to argue on Yadav’s bona fide in connection with this case, the Court could even go to the extent of enhancing his punishment to 2 years.

READ MORE:JCO Salman Khan's Asiad rowing medal ignites his Olympic dream

The Court, however, said it was not going down that road for now. Its immediate priority was to ensure that the complainant received the money due to him. Once the payment was secured, the court said it would hear Yadav’s challenge to the Delhi High Court order on merits of the case.