Madhampatty Rangaraj's Catering Company Moves Madras High Court Against Alleged Defamatory Posts By Celebrity Stylist Joy Crizilda

Justice N Senthilkumar has adjourned the case to September 24 after noting that the CEO of the company has also filed a suit for personality rights. The court decided to take up both cases together since it dealt with the same issues.

Background

Crizilda 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.

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 had thus sought a permanent injunction restraining Crizilda from making the allegations against the company and tarnishing its reputation.

When the matter came up for hearing today, Senior Advocate PS Raman, appearing for the company said that the company had suffered a loss of Rs. 12 crore in the past 15 days due to the posts made by Crizilda. On the other hand, Senior Advocate S Prabakaran, appearing for Crizilda, questioned this claim and contended that the suit itself was not maintainable. Crizilda also argued that the company was trying to shield its CEO. 

In her counter, Crizilda submitted that she got acquainted with Rangaraj in July 2023 through a mutual friend. She submitted that Rangaraj had informed her that he got judicially separated from his wife and had been living separately. She further submitted that when the two got close, Rangaraj told her that he wished to marry her and that she should begin the divorce proceedings. She informed that after she got divorced, both her and Rangaraj got married on December 24, 2023, in the presence of the latter's friends and company staff. 

Crizilda also alleged that Rangaraj had forced her to undergo two abortions after their marriage and had even physically assaulted her, leaving her with injuries on being informed about the third pregnancy. She also stated that following this, he stopped communicating with her, and it was only then that she came to know that Rangaraj had not divorced his former wife. She also stated that she had filed a police complaint in this regard. 

Stating that non-commercial, nominative use of the trademark in criticism was permissible, she argued that the company's suit was not maintainable. She also argued that the company had stated a vague reason for not pursuing the pre-suit mediation, which was unacceptable.

Noting that Rangaraj had filed a suit for protecting his personality rights, the court decided to hear the cases together and adjourned the case.

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 and CS (Comm Div) 231 of 2025