Wed Sep 17 08:17:42 UTC 2025: ## Summary of the Text:

The news article reports on a legal dispute in Chennai, India, involving Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited and costume designer Joy Crizildaa, who claims to be married to one of the company’s directors, Madhampatty Rangaraj. The company alleges that Crizildaa’s “disparaging” social media posts, using hashtags related to their trademark “Madhampatty Pakashala,” have caused them to lose ₹12 crore in contracts. Crizildaa’s counsel argues that the company’s loss claim lacks verification and asserts her right to freedom of speech, stating she was “cheated after marriage” and is now pregnant. The court has directed the High Court Registry to number a separate suit filed by Mr. Rangaraj to protect his personality rights and to be listed alongside the company’s suit on September 24, 2025. A decision on the company’s plea for an injunction against Crizildaa’s hashtag usage will be made on the next hearing date.

## News Article:

**Chennai Catering Company Claims ₹12 Crore Loss Due to Social Media Posts by Director’s Wife**

**CHENNAI, INDIA – September 17, 2025** – Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited, a prominent catering company, is embroiled in a legal battle with costume designer Joy Crizildaa, who claims to be married to one of the company’s directors, Madhampatty Rangaraj. The company alleges that Ms. Crizildaa’s social media posts, deemed “disparaging,” have caused significant damage to their trademark, “Madhampatty Pakashala,” leading to the cancellation of contracts worth ₹12 crore in the past two weeks.

During a hearing at the Chennai High Court on Wednesday, counsel for Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality argued that Ms. Crizildaa’s hashtags are diverting customers looking for their menu on social media to her posts, causing substantial financial losses.

Representing Ms. Crizildaa, her counsel questioned the veracity of the company’s loss claims, demanding written proof of the alleged damages. They further argued that restricting Ms. Crizildaa’s hashtag usage would infringe upon her right to freedom of speech and expression, citing her claim of being “cheated after marriage” and her current pregnancy. Her council further noted that Crizildaa had filed a police complaint against Mr. Rangaraj in August 2025, after which the company approached the court with the present suit.

Justice N. Senthilkumar acknowledged that Mr. Rangaraj has also filed a separate suit to protect his personality rights. The court has directed the High Court Registry to number and list Mr. Rangaraj’s suit alongside the company’s suit on September 24, 2025.

The court will rule on the company’s request for an injunction against Ms. Crizildaa’s hashtag usage at the next hearing. The case highlights the growing impact of social media on business reputation and the complex interplay between personal disputes and corporate interests.

Read More