Rajpal Yadav’s Lawyer Says Amitabh Bachchan Name Surfaced in ₹9 Crore Cheque Bounce Case

The ongoing legal dispute involving Bollywood actor Rajpal Yadav took a notable turn when his legal counsel mentioned the connection of another prominent figure during arguments in a ₹9 crore cheque bounce case. The matter has generated significant media interest because the lawyer cited the name of legendary actor Amitabh Bachchan while presenting aspects of the case.

The ₹9 crore case stems from an allegation of dishonoured financial instruments issued in relation to a business transaction dating back several years. The complainant claimed that cheques worth ₹9 crore were issued but subsequently bounced due to insufficient funds, leading to legal action under provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Rajpal Yadav, known for his comic and character roles in Hindi cinema, has been contesting the allegations, maintaining that the matter involves complex contractual details and external influences.

During a recent hearing in a Delhi court, Yadav’s defence counsel submitted arguments that included references to the involvement of a broader network of individuals and business entities. In the course of outlining these details, the lawyer stated that during earlier stages of negotiations and agreements, the name of veteran actor Amitabh Bachchan had emerged in some capacity. The specific nature of the reference has not been made entirely clear in public records, and neither Amitabh Bachchan nor his representatives has officially confirmed any direct involvement.

According to statements attributed to the defence team, mentioning the Amitabh Bachchan connection was part of explaining the sequence of events leading up to the cheque issuance and subsequent disputes. The lawyer argued that such connections were relevant to demonstrate how multiple parties were involved in the discussions and how misunderstandings or role attributions may have arisen. The aim, as stated by the defence, was to contextualise why the financial instruments became entangled in a larger network of agreements.

The court documents show that the legal arguments revolved around whether the terms of an agreement were fully honoured, and whether Rajpal Yadav personally bore responsibility for the financial obligation in question. The defence raised additional points about contractual interpretations, timelines and responsibilities of other persons or entities mentioned in the transaction negotiations. Citing a name like Amitabh Bachchan drew attention due to his stature in the film industry, although the lawyer clarified that the reference was not accusing him of wrongdoing but illustrating the nature of the broader business context.

Complainants in cheque bounce matters often pursue remedies through both criminal and civil channels, seeking compensation and enforcement of financial obligations. The case involving Yadav has seen multiple hearings as the defence and prosecution present their respective evidence and counterarguments. Legal sources say the matter is complex due to the amount involved and the multiple actors referenced in the documentation.

In response to media queries about the Amitabh Bachchan name being invoked, sources close to the Yadav camp emphasised that mentioning a prominent figure was not intended to defame or imply direct involvement. They clarified that the case is being viewed through a legal lens, and the court will ultimately determine liability based on contractual evidence, banking records and statutory provisions.

As proceedings continue, the court will consider submissions from both sides, including the defence’s claims about contextual connections and the complainant’s insistence on honouring the bounced cheques. Legal observers note that cheque bounce cases involving high monetary value often require detailed examination of business deals, signatories, contractual responsibilities and whether any party had direct control over financial instruments.

At this stage, Yadav remains legally engaged with the matter, and additional hearings and submissions are expected before the court reaches a conclusion. Both legal representatives and industry commentators are watching the case for how it navigates the intersections of celebrity profiles, contractual accountability and Indian legal procedure.