'Not Made Statements Against Commercial Activities Of Company': Joy Crizilda Tells Madras High Court In Plea By Madhampatty Pakasala

Celebrity stylist Joy Crizilda, on Wednesday submitted before the Madras High Court that she had not made any damaging statement against Madhampatty Pakasala, the catering company owned by Madhampatty Rangaraj.The submissions were made before Justice N Senthilkumar. The court was hearing an application filed by Madhampatty Pakasala seeking a permanent injunction restraining Crizilda from making the allegations against the company and tarnishing its reputation. After hearing the parties, the court has now reserved its orders on the applications.BackgroundCrizilda had previously made social media posts announcing her wedding to Rangaraj 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 has now 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.In the previous hearing, the company had alleged that it had suffered a loss of Rs. 12 crore in the past 15 days due to the posts made by Crizilda. This claim was questioned by Crizilda following which the court had asked the company to file the details of loss suffered in the form of an affidavit.When the matter was taken up today, Senior Advocate PS Raman, appearing for the catering company argued that from 3rd August 2025 till September, the company had suffered a loss of around 11.27 crore due to cancellation of orders. The senior counsel argued that it was unusual for a catering companyt to loose so many orders, unless there were other instances like food poisoning involved.Raman submitted that he was not asking Crizilda to not talk against Rangaraj but only wanted to protect the revenue of the company, which was being affected due to the disparaging statements made by Crizilda. Relying on the order of Justice GR Swaminathan in the case of Actor Mohan Ravi in which the court had restrained the media from publishing any news againt the parties involved, Raman submitted that a similar order could be passed in the present application also since the reputation of the catering company was being affected.On the other hand, Senior Counsel Prabhakaran, appearing for Crizilda argued that she had not made any statements damaging the reputation of the company. Prabhakaran argued that Crizilda had never made any statements about the commercial transactions of the company or asked people not to give contract to the company. She also submitted that she was only fighting for her life and the right of her unborn child. “Nowhere in my statement I'm speaking about the company or its commercial activity. I'm not saying not to give them contracts. I'm fighting for my life. In my advanced stage of pregnancy. How is the company transaction even connected with my statement. They cannot presume. I'm only concerned about my right. My unborn child's right,” Prabhakaran argued.She also argued that the issue involved in the present case was of criminal nature but the catering company was attempting to give a commercial colour to it.Perusing the additional affidavit filed by the catering company regarding their claim of losses, Prabhakaran argued that the affidavit did not contain any details regarding the vouchers, the date of which the orders were made, the date on which advance was paid, date on which orders were cancelled, dates on which money had to be repaid. He also submitted that there was nothing to show that the orders were cancelled due to the alleged statements made by Crizilda.Meanwhile, an application has also been filed by Madhampatty Rangaraj seeking to protect his personality rights. Since this petition was not numbered, the court decided to take it up next week.Counsel for the Plaintiff: Senior Counsel PS Raman for Mr. Vijayan SubramaniamCounsel for the Defendant: Senior Counsel S Prabakaran for Ms R Sudha and Mr Maheswaran PCase Title: Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited v Joy CrizildaaCase No: OA 904 of 2025 and CS (Comm Div) 231 of 2025

'Not Made Statements Against Commercial Activities Of Company': Joy Crizilda Tells Madras High Court In Plea By Madhampatty Pakasala

Upasana Sajeev

Tags