In this case, celebrity chef and businessman T. Rangaraj (plaintiff/applicant), a director in a hospitality company and public figure known from TV shows and films, filed a commercial suit claiming that costume designer Joy Crizildaa (defendant) posted false, defamatory, and malicious content on Instagram and other platforms from July to August 2025, falsely portraying a marital relationship with him, which severely damaged his personal reputation, family life, and commercial interests in the hospitality and entertainment sectors, causing revenue loss and viral media trial.
He sought interim injunction to restrain further defamatory publications and mandatory removal/deletion of the posts.
The defendant countered that she had a genuine intimate relationship and marriage with the plaintiff (as per Hindu rites on 24.12.2023) after he represented himself as judicially separated and encouraged her to divorce her husband, and she provided prima facie evidence like chats and photos, alleging deception, forced abortions, and abuse by him when she refused further termination.
The Madras High Court, after hearing both sides and considering the materials, held that the plaintiff failed to prima facie establish his case for interim relief, as a physical relationship was evident, the dispute involved contested facts requiring full trial, no clear commercial exploitation of personality rights was shown for a gag order, and the balance of convenience and irreparable injury tilted in favour of the defendant, resulting in dismissal of both interim applications.
Crisp bullet points of law settled in the case:
A celebrity’s personality rights cannot be invoked to secure a blanket gag order or takedown of social media posts at the interim stage without prima facie material establishing commercial exploitation of such rights.
In cases involving disputed factual relationship allegations with supporting evidence (such as chats, photographs), the veracity cannot be determined at the interlocutory stage and requires full trial; interim injunction to suppress speech is not warranted merely on denial by one party.
Case Title: T.Rangaraj Vs. Ms.Joy Crizildaa:07.01.2026: C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.250 of 2025:MadHC:The Honourable Mr. Justice N.Senthilkumar
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
No comments:
Post a Comment