Catering company ‘Madhampatty Pakashala’ moves Madras High Court against defamatory posts by costumer designer Joy Crizildaa

Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited has approached the Madras High Court to restrain costume designer Joy Crizildaa, who claims to have married one of the directors of the catering company, from disparaging the “goodwill and reputation” of the unregistered trademark ‘Madhampatty Pakashala.’

Justice N. Senthilkumar, on Tuesday (September 9, 2025), ordered notice, returnable by September 16, to the costume designer in a civil suit filed by the catering company and permitted the company’s counsel on record Vijayan Subramanian to issue private notice too to her since the case was scheduled to be heard next within a week.

Brand reputation

During the course of arguments, senior counsel P.S. Raman, representing the plaintiff company, said it was incorporated on August 30, 2010 and made a mark in the catering and food services business under the brand name ‘Madhampatty Pakashala.’ It had become very popular over the years.

Stating its popularity was due to the hard work of individuals involved in the business and the quality of food served by them, the senior counsel said the company had also invested a substantial sum of money to create awareness among the public with regard to its high quality catering service.

The concerted efforts had led to the brand ‘Madhampatty Pakashala’ becoming a trusted name in the hospitality industry and its clientele included eminent personalities, celebrities, politicians, corporates as well as government and private institutions. It had also been covered widely in culinary journals and other media.

Joy Crizildaa’s social media posts on Rangaraj

However, in July 2025, the company came to know about Ms. Crizildaa having begun to post defaming messages on her social media handles by hastagging the company’s brand name Madhampatty Pakashala, Madhampatty group of companies and other brands associated with it, Mr. Raman said.

On its part, the company, in its plaint, said: “The trademark of the plaintiff is being wilfully defamed by the first defendant (Ms. Crizildaa), who, with malice and ulterior motive, has been propagating false and scandalous allegations that she shares an alleged marital relationship with Rangaraj, one of the directors of the plaintiff.”

The plaint went on to read: “These allegations are wholly false, concocted, and devoid of any factual basis, and have been deliberately made to tarnish the reputation of the plaintiff’s trademark ‘Madhampatty Pakashala’ and other brands and its management before the public.”  

Stating the personal affairs of an individual director could not be used to disparage the reputation of the company built over years of hardwork, commitment and goodwill; the plaintiff said, such acts of the defendant would cause serious reputational and commercial loss to the company.

The plaintiff urged the court to restrain the defendant from tagging, hashtagging, making, writing, uploading, publishing, broadcasting, distributing, posting, circulating, or disseminating any false or malicious material, statements, videos, reels, captions or photographs disparaging the “goodwill” of Madhampatty Pakashala.

It also sought a direction to her to delete the defamatory posts made in her social media handles and accounts.