KK Supermart sues supplier over "Allah" socks issue

The lawsuits were filed over alleged breach of contract and sabotage after the company was supplied with the socks without its knowledge.

26 Mar 2024 08:00am
Socks with the word ‘Allah’ printed on them were sold at KK Mart in Bandar Sunway and the issue went viral on social media since March 13. - Social media pic
Socks with the word ‘Allah’ printed on them were sold at KK Mart in Bandar Sunway and the issue went viral on social media since March 13. - Social media pic
A
A
A

KUALA LUMPUR - KK Supermart & Superstore Sdn Bhd filed a lawsuit against Xin Jian Chang Sdn Bhd and its director Soh Chin Huat today over alleged breach of contract and sabotage after the company was supplied with socks bearing the word "Allah” without its knowledge.

KK Supermart filed the lawsuit through Messrs David Gurupatham & Koay at the Shah Alam High Court, naming Soh and his company as first and second defendants.

Lawyer Datuk David Gurupatham, representing KK Supermart confirmed the filing when contacted by Bernama, stating that his client is seeking RM1.5 million in compensation over the loss of income, RM10,500 for damage caused to the company’s brand name, RM20.3 million for the company’s aborted proposed stock market listing, aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages and other relief deemed reasonable by the court.

KK Supermart has also applied for a prohibitory injunction to prevent the defendants from further causing losses by way of unlawful interference to its business.

The statement of claim filed by the plaintiff showed that KK Supermart and both defendants signed an agreement to supply products for sale on consignment at its premises, subject to the contract’s terms and conditions.

The plaintiff alleges that on Feb 5, the second defendant requested permission from the plaintiff to supply arm covers, which was allowed on good faith but was not notified or informed that the barcode of this product would be used for the sale of socks bearing the word "Allah” at its premises.

Based on the plaintiff’s record, the defendant had placed the socks at the premises without being supervised by the store’s workers as only a cashier was on duty and alleged that the defendant had deliberately sabotaged its business and destroyed its reputation, which resulted in a boycott and negative comments from the public. - BERNAMA