KK Super Mart, a well-known retail chain in Malaysia, has recently filed a lawsuit against a socks vendor for breach of contract, claiming damages totaling over RM30 million. The legal action, initiated at the Shah Alam High Court, involves allegations of business sabotage and unlawful interference with KK Super Mart’s operations.
The lawsuit names Soh Chin Huat and Xin Jian Chang Sdn Bhd as defendants. Soh Chin Huat serves as the director of Xin Jian Chang, a private limited company based in Batu Pahat, Johor. According to KK Super Mart’s statement of claim, they had entered into a supply agreement with Xin Jian Chang on December 1, 2021.
Under the terms of the agreement, Xin Jian Chang was permitted to sell goods on consignment at KK Super Mart’s premises. However, KK Super Mart alleges that the defendants breached their contractual obligations by displaying unauthorized products, specifically socks bearing the word “Allah,” without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.
The dispute arose when Xin Jian Chang applied to supply arm covers at KK Super Mart outlets on February 5. Although KK Super Mart approved the consignment of cotton/nylon arm covers, they assert that no permission was granted for the display or sale of socks featuring religious imagery.
KK Super Mart contends that the unauthorized placement of socks bearing the word “Allah” on their premises constitutes a violation of the law and has caused irreparable damage to their business reputation. They claim that Soh Chin Huat deliberately interfered with their trade and business operations, potentially jeopardizing their planned listing on the stock exchange through an initial public offering (IPO).
As a result of the alleged misconduct, KK Super Mart asserts that they have faced public boycotts, hate messages, threats of violence, and negative social media comments, impeding their ability to conduct business effectively. Consequently, they are seeking substantial compensation from the defendants.
Among the damages sought by KK Super Mart are compensation for loss of profits, damage to their brand name and goodwill in the market, reimbursement for expenses related to the aborted IPO, as well as aggravated, punitive, or exemplary damages. The plaintiff also seeks a court declaration affirming the unlawful interference with their business and an order for the defendants to indemnify them for any liability incurred.