Hon’ble High court of Madras today, heard the commercial suit filed by Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Ptv Ltd (Plaintiff) against Joy Crizildaa (Defendant) seeking an order of injunction restraining Joy Crizildaa from posting any disparaging post relating to the Company and using the hashtag of the unregistered trademark “Madhampatty Pakshala” .
The Hon’ble High court of Madras today, heard the commercial suit filed by Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Ptv Ltd (Plaintiff) against Joy Crizildaa (Defendant) seeking an order of injunction restraining Joy Crizildaa from posting any disparaging post relating to the Company and using the hashtag of the unregistered trademark “Madhampatty Pakshala” .
The plaintiff was represented by the Senior Counsel Mr. P.S. Raman and the defendant was represented by senior counsel Mr. S. Prabakaran.
The senior counsel for the plaintiff Mr. P.S. Raman, argued that the suit is filed seeking a relief of injunction against the defendant for disparagement claiming that the #madhampattypakshala hashtag which was included in the caption of the defendant’s instagram post on July 26th 2025 and consequent posts amounts to infringement and disparagement of their trademark. The senior counsel also contended that this act of disparagement by the defendant had resulted in a loss of about 12.5 crores in the past 15 days due to the reported damages caused to the Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Ptv Ltd. The counsel for the petitioner had submitted a list of their canceled contracts showing a loss of about 12.5 crore to the company.
Senior counsel Mr Prabakaran for the defendant contended that there are certain essentials to attract disparagement, therefore in this present case, just tagging #madhampattypakshala in social media posts will not amount to disparagement. The veracity of the losses suffered by the company was also questioned as there was no sufficient proof or materials to support the same and that the clients may have cancelled the contracts due to unsatisfactory taste, service or other reasons best known to them which may have been completely unrelated to the hashtags posted by the defendant. the senior counsel further argued that the defendant being in her advanced pregnancy has been cheated by the director of the company Mr Madhampatty Rangaraj and now he has left her in lurch and despite giving series of complaints no action was initiated by the police authorities for around 30days. Further it was also questioned that, the defendant has used the same hashtag #madhampattypakshala in 2024, but it was not considered as a defamatory post.
Further, Senior counsel Mr. Shrinath Shridevan, representing Mr. Madhampatty Thangaraj contended that he was ready to defend his client, but his arguments was postponed as that case is yet to be numbered in the court. The senior counsel also mentioned that his client has been called for investigation on 25th September and has promised to cooperate with the same.
The senior counsel for the plaintiff argued that the search results for “Madhampatty” yields the pictures and posts of the defendant rather than the director of the company (Mr. Madhampatty Rangaraj). The senior counsel mentioned that even the customers searching for Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Ptv Ltd menu are being directed towards the damaging and defamatory posts and the Senior counsel also stressed the importance and uses of hashtags in social media posts. It was also further stressed that this present suit pertains to the Company (Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Ptv Ltd) and not the individual (Mr. Madhampatty Rangaraj). The Consel contended that the 2024 post was considered as a mere promotional post to the company due to their goodwill.
Countering the submissions, senior counsel Mr Prabakaran argued that suit was only filed on 03/09/2025, after the complaint given by the defendant on 29/8/2025 and they are trying to hide behind their company. The Senior counsel argued that the defendant has no intention to defame the plaintiff (company) or the individual (Mr. Madhampatty Rangaraj) but instead only claims justice for her unborn child.
After hearing the arguments of both sides, analysing the case laws discussed by both the counsels and referring the relevant provisions, the case was reserved for judgement
