The Madras High Court has reserved its order on a petition seeking a permanent injunction against celebrity stylist Joy Crizilda, filed by Madhampatty Rangaraj’s catering company, Madhampatty Pakasala. The company claims that Crizilda’s social media posts have defamed its business, causing reputational damage and substantial financial losses. The case highlights the growing intersection between personal disputes, digital communication, and corporate reputation, particularly in the age of social media.
The dispute arises from the personal relationship between Crizilda and Rangaraj. Crizilda had announced her marriage to Rangaraj and later claimed that she was pregnant with his child. Subsequently, she posted allegations on social media accusing Rangaraj of infidelity, deceit, and coercion, including claims that he forced her to undergo abortions. Crizilda also alleged that Rangaraj had not divorced his first wife, contrary to his assertions. In her posts, she tagged Madhampatty Pakasala and its affiliated brands, which the company claims was an attempt to associate its commercial reputation with her personal grievances. The company maintains that the posts were malicious and intended to damage its public image.
Madhampatty Pakasala, represented by Senior Advocate P.S. Raman, contends that the alleged defamation has led to significant commercial losses, estimated at approximately ₹11.27 crore between early August and September 2025, primarily due to order cancellations directly linked to Crizilda’s posts. The company argues that the allegations are unrelated to its business operations and were intended solely to harm its commercial interests, constituting actionable defamation under Indian law.
Crizilda, represented by Senior Advocate S. Prabakaran, denies targeting the company’s commercial interests. She contends that her posts were personal expressions relating to her relationship with Rangaraj and that any impact on the business was incidental rather than deliberate. Crizilda also questions the authenticity of the claimed financial losses, arguing that the petition is being used as a vehicle to protect Rangaraj from scrutiny rather than to safeguard legitimate business concerns. Her defense underscores the tension between an individual’s right to free expression and a company’s right to protect its reputation.
The High Court’s decision will hinge on whether the statements made by Crizilda crossed the threshold from personal grievance into actionable defamation affecting Madhampatty Pakasala’s commercial operations. The Court must assess the nature of the posts, the intent behind them, and the extent to which they have caused tangible harm to the company’s reputation and business. This case exemplifies the challenges faced by courts in balancing freedom of expression with protection against reputational harm, particularly in the digital era where personal and business spheres often overlap.
The outcome of this case will have broader implications for defamation law in India, especially concerning social media communications, the rights of public figures, and the protection of corporate reputation from collateral impact arising from personal disputes. It emphasizes the need for courts to carefully evaluate the factual matrix and determine the extent of liability while ensuring that constitutional rights and business interests are appropriately safeguarded.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.