Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited has approached the Madras High Court to restrain costume designer Joy Crizildaa, who claims to have married one of many administrators 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 discover, returnable by September 16, to the costume designer in a civil swimsuit filed by the catering company and permitted the company’s counsel on file Vijayan Subramanian to difficulty non-public discover too to her for the reason that case was scheduled to be heard subsequent inside per week.
Brand status
During the course of arguments, senior counsel P.S. Raman, representing the plaintiff company, stated it was integrated on August 30, 2010 and made a mark within the catering and meals providers enterprise beneath the model title ‘Madhampatty Pakashala.’ It had develop into very fashionable over time.
Stating its recognition was because of the arduous work of people concerned within the enterprise and the standard of meals served by them, the senior counsel stated the company had additionally invested a considerable sum of cash to create consciousness among the many public with regard to its top quality catering service.
The concerted efforts had led to the model ‘Madhampatty Pakashala’ turning into a trusted title within the hospitality business and its clientele included eminent personalities, celebrities, politicians, corporates in addition to authorities and personal establishments. It had additionally been coated extensively in culinary journals and different media.
Joy Crizildaa’s social media posts on Rangaraj
However, in July 2025, the company got here to learn about Ms. Crizildaa having begun to put up defaming messages on her social media handles by hastagging the company’s model title Madhampatty Pakashala, Madhampatty group of corporations and different manufacturers related to it, Mr. Raman stated.
On its half, the company, in its plaint, stated: “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 learn: “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 private affairs of a person director couldn’t be used to disparage the status of the company constructed over years of hardwork, dedication and goodwill; the plaintiff stated, such acts of the defendant would trigger critical reputational and industrial loss to the company.
The plaintiff urged the courtroom to restrain the defendant from tagging, hashtagging, making, writing, importing, publishing, broadcasting, distributing, posting, circulating, or disseminating any false or malicious materials, statements, movies, reels, captions or pictures disparaging the “goodwill” of Madhampatty Pakashala.
It additionally sought a path to her to delete the defamatory posts made in her social media handles and accounts.
