In a significant legal development, the Madras High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Private Limited that sought to ban fashion designer Joy Crizildaa from posting about the company on social media platforms.
Court Rejects Reputation Damage Claims
Justice Senthilkumar delivered the verdict after hearing arguments from both parties, dealing a major setback to Madhampatty Rangaraj and his catering business. The court specifically addressed the company's claim that Joy Crizildaa's social media activities had caused substantial financial harm.
The petitioner had alleged that catering orders worth Rs. 12 crore were canceled between August and September due to Crizildaa's posts. However, the court found no solid documentation to support this substantial financial loss claim.
Legal Battle Over Social Media Criticism
According to the petition filed by Madhampatty Hospitality, Joy Crizildaa had been continuously criticizing Madhampatty Rangaraj on various social media platforms. The company argued that she was tagging the company's name in these posts, which they claimed was damaging their reputation and business prospects.
The primary demand in the petition was to obtain a court order preventing Joy Crizildaa from discussing the company or its affairs on any social media platform. The company maintained that the continuous negative publicity was affecting their commercial operations.
Defense Counters Allegations
Joy Crizildaa's legal team strongly denied all allegations during the court proceedings. Her lawyer argued that none of her social media posts specifically mentioned the Madhampatty Pakashala company or referenced their commercial activities in any direct manner.
The defense emphasized that the petitioner failed to provide any concrete evidence establishing a direct link between Crizildaa's social media registration and the company's alleged financial losses. They maintained that the cancellation of catering orders could have resulted from various factors and connecting them to social media posts was merely speculative.
Justice Senthilkumar ultimately agreed with these arguments, noting that the ban request could not be accepted since Crizildaa's posts did not appear to have provoked any direct trade restrictions against the company.
Victory Celebration and Immediate Aftermath
Within hours of the verdict being announced, Joy Crizildaa took to her social media platforms to express her happiness about the favorable decision. Her posts reflected relief and satisfaction with the court's ruling, which she viewed as upholding her right to free expression.
This case highlights the growing legal conflicts between businesses and individuals over social media content and establishes an important precedent regarding the burden of proof required when companies seek to restrict online speech based on alleged financial damages.
The dismissal of Madhampatty's petition reinforces that courts require substantial evidence before limiting individuals' social media activities, even when businesses claim significant financial losses.
