KUALA LUMPUR – KK Supermart & Superstore Sdn Bhd is suing Xin Jian Chang Sdn Bhd for RM30 million as the furore over its sale of “Allah”-printed socks intensifies.
The convenience store chain is filing a suit against the local company for allegedly sabotaging its business.
When contacted by Scoop, KK Supermart’s lawyer Datuk David Gurupatham confirmed that it had been filed at Shah Alam High Court yesterday.
According to KK Supermart’s statement of claim, it named Xin Jian Chang and its director, Soh Chin Huat, as defendants, alleging that they neglected their duties and breached an established contract.
Besides a court declaration that the defendants had unlawfully interfered with its business, KK Supermart is also seeking a prohibitory injunction to prevent the defendants from further causing loss and damage to the plaintiff.
KK Supermart is also claiming from the defendants RM10.5 million in damages caused to its brand name and goodwill in the market, another RM20.3 million caused by the aborted proposed listing (IPO) on the stock exchange, aggravated damages to be assessed by the court, as well as punitive and exemplary damages.
At the same time, KK Supermart also wants the court to assess the actual loss for its loss of profits from its average business income of RM1.5 million a week.
The alleged breach
The court document referenced a supply agreement dated December 1, 2021, and witnessed by Soh – wherein KK Supermart agreed to Xin Jian Chang’s request to sell goods on consignment at the store’s outlets.
The agreement also outlines that the goods will be placed by Xin Jian Chang at KK Supermart’s premises subject to stipulated terms and conditions.
“The defendant(s) by virtue of the supply agreement has owed contractual obligation and a duty of care to the plaintiff to ensure that the goods supplied are not only in accordance with the terms of the contract but also lawful under the Sales of Goods Act 1957.”
KK Supermart claimed that while it had, in good faith, allowed Xin Jian Chang to place arm covers at its premises following an application by the latter on February 5 this year, it had never permitted this consignment with the corresponding barcode to be used to display or sell socks.
“The defendants negligently and recklessly put for sale the socks bearing the word ‘Allah’ without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent at the plaintiff’s premises in Bandar Sunway – which is against the law,” the company said in its statement of claim.
“The defendants had, at no time or at all, informed or notified the plaintiff by description or otherwise that the barcode used for sale…would be socks with the description ‘Allah’ and/or ‘Kalimah Allah’.
“The plaintiff would certainly not allow it as it would be in breach of the contract and against the law.
“The defendant negligently/recklessly allowed the socks to be placed at the plaintiff’s Bandar Sunway outlet, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff,” it added.
It also said that the defendants were aware that on February 5, two out of three staffers at its Bandar Sunway outlet did not turn up for work and there was only one worker at the cashier counter.
“The defendants were fully aware that they would be able to place these unlawful goods on the racks of the plaintiff’s shop without supervision.
“Under the circumstances above, the plaintiff could not have reasonably supervised the placement of the socks nor inspected the goods.”
Boycott a result of ‘sabotage’?
It also claimed that as a direct result of Xin Jian Chang’s sabotage, there was a public boycott of KK Supermart’s outlets nationwide, numerous hate messages against the brand, threats of violence, as well as negative social comments and posts by hundreds of thousands of people.
“(This has caused) the plaintiff to be unable to reasonably conduct business in Malaysia (and) suffer irretrievable harm, loss, and damage.”
Two KK Supermart directors and three figures from Xin Jian Chang are expected to face court charges today under laws outlined in the Penal Code.
This involves Section 298 on deliberately wounding religious feelings, which carries an imprisonment term of up to one year, a fine, or both for those found guilty – and Section 109 on abetment. – March 26, 2024