Rajpal Yadav Cheque Bounce Case: Businessman Who Lent Actor Money Clarifies, “It Was Strictly A Loan And Not An Investment”

The long-running cheque-bounce case involving actor Rajpal Yadav has taken an emotional turn after the businessman who funded his film opened up about the financial and personal toll the dispute has taken on him. The lender, Madhav Gopal Agarwal, owner of Murali Projects Pvt Ltd, who, after an agreement for Rs 8 crore, loaned them the money, detailed how years of unpaid dues, bounced cheques, and mounting bank interest had driven him to desperation.

Businessman Who Lent Rajpal Yadav Money Opens Up

The dispute dates back to 2010 when Yadav borrowed Rs 5 crore from Agarwal’s company to finance his directorial venture Ata Pata Laapata. However, after the film failed commercially, repayment stalled. What followed were legal notices, court proceedings and multiple attempts to settle the matter. The issue eventually reached the Delhi High Court, after which the actor was in the headlines and was released from Tihar Jail on 17 February 2026.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Bollywood Bubble (@bollywoodbubble)

In an interview with News Pinch, the businessman revealed that Rajpal Yadav approached him through MP Mithilesh Kumar Katheria and insisted that his film was nearly complete and that if he did not receive immediate funding, “everything will go to waste”. The businessman revealed that he intially hesitated to grant the money but Rajpal Yadav’s wife, Radha Yadav called his and ‘pressurised’ him, which made him after an agreement of Rs 8 crore, he loaned them the money.

The businessman said that Rajpal and his wife, Radha, also gave a personal guarantee and a promissory note. He clarified that it was strictly a loan and not an investment, noting that investments typically do not involve personal guarantees or post-dated cheques.

Businessman Madhav Gopal Agarwal On Lending Rajpal Yadav Money

Recalling how the situation escalated, Agarwal said to News Pinch, “In 2013, he filed an application in the Delhi High Court asking if Murli Projects could settle the matter for ₹10.40 crore. The High Court asked us if we could agree, and since a significant amount was due as per the agreement, we thought whatever money comes in is fine, and we gave our consent. Rajpal then submitted cheques in the Delhi HC, and they were handed over to us. But all those cheques (seven cheques) bounced.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Bollywood Bubble (@bollywoodbubble)

Despite mediation efforts, Agarwal claimed the dues were never cleared. He described repeatedly visiting the actor to request repayment, only to return empty-handed. “During the mediation in 2015, I even said, please give my money in one go, and we’ll forget everything that happened. But he said he couldn’t pay it in one go. I even went to his house in Mumbai three to four times, and twice I literally cried like a child because I had also borrowed money from someone else. We are also paying interest to the bank.”

While courts continue to hear the matter, Agarwal’s account highlights the human side of the dispute — one that extends beyond paperwork and legal battles. As the case moves forward, the controversy serves as a reminder of how financial disagreements in the film industry can deeply affect both parties, long after the cameras stop rolling.

For more news and updates from the entertainment world, stay tuned to Bollywood Bubble.

Also Read: Rajpal Yadav Cheque Bounce Case: Actor Makes FIRST Public Appearance After Being Released From Tihar Jail; Says, “My Country, Bollywood Has Loved Me“

Varsha Tiwari

Varsha Tiwari is a budding content writer passionate about Bollywood, pop culture, and the stories behind the spotlight. She enjoys breaking down trends, celebrity moments, and film narratives into engaging, reader-friendly content. Always curious and observant, she is currently pursuing a Master’s in Communication and Journalism. Outside of writing, she enjoys painting because storytelling doesn’t always need words to make an impact.