Madras High Court Refuses To Restrain Celebrity Stylist Joy Crizilda From Naming Madhampatty Rangaraj's Company In Social Media Posts
The Madras High Court has refused to restrain celebrity stylist Joy Crizildaa from tagging the names of Madhampatty Catering Company in her social media posts. Justice N Senthil Kumar dismissed the application for interim injunction moved by the catering company seeking to restrain Crizildaa and any person claiming through her, from tagging, hashtag, marking, writing, uploading,...
The Madras High Court has refused to restrain celebrity stylist Joy Crizildaa from tagging the names of Madhampatty Catering Company in her social media posts.
Justice N Senthil Kumar dismissed the application for interim injunction moved by the catering company seeking to restrain Crizildaa and any person claiming through her, from tagging, hashtag, marking, writing, uploading, printing, publishing, broadcasting, distributing, posting, circulating or disseminating any false or malicious material, statements, video reels, captions, photographs, etc of the catering company which may affect its good will and reputation.
Background
Crizilda had previously made social media posts announcing her wedding to Madhampatty Rangaraj, one of the owners of the catering company, and had also announced her pregnancy with him. The issue arose after Joy Crizilda made social media posts alleging that Rangaraj had cheated her, married her, impregnated her, and claiming justice for her unborn child.
The company alleged that Crizilda, with a malicious and ulterior motive, had been propagating false and scandalous allegations regarding the alleged marital relationship. It was submitted that the allegations made by Crizilda were wholly false, concocted, and devoid of any factual basis and were deliberately made to tarnish the reputation of the company.
The company argued that Crizilda, in her posts, had been tagging all brand names associated with the company. It was submitted that she did not have any right or authority to disparage the catering company and its trademark and other brands.
The company submitted that the private and personal affairs of the individual Director were wholly distinct from the independent legal personality of the company which has been built over the years with hard work, commitment, and goodwill. The company alleged that Crizilda was trying to sensationalise the personal allegations and wrongfully linking it with the company name.
The company argued that it had suffered a loss of Rs. 12 crore in 15 days due to the posts made by Crizildaa.
Countering the plea, Crizildaa submitted that she had not made any damaging statement against Madhampatty Pakasala. It was submitted that Crizilda had never made any statements about the commercial transactions of the company or asked people not to give a contract to the company. She also submitted that she was only fighting for her life and the right of her unborn child.
She also argued that the issue involved in the present case was of a criminal nature, but the catering company was attempting to give a commercial colour to it.
After hearing the parties, the court today dismissed the interim injunction application filed by the company and adjourned the main suit to December 8, 2025.
Meanwhile, an application has also been filed by Madhampatty Rangaraj seeking to protect his personality rights.
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Senior Counsel PS Raman for Mr. Vijayan Subramaniam
Counsel for the Defendant: Senior Counsel S Prabakaran for Ms R Sudha and Mr Maheswaran P
Case Title: Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited v Joy Crizildaa
Case No: OA 904 of 2025