Indian-origin CEO spent ₹3.5 crore on girlfriend, then sued her after breakup. Court rejected claim

An Indian-origin business executive's lavish spending on his former girlfriend has ended in a Singapore court battle after he sought to recover S$468,090 (around ₹3.5 crore), claiming the money had been given as interest-free loans.

Chander Agarwal, chief executive officer of an Indian logistics company and managing director of TCI Express, filed a lawsuit against his former girlfriend, Felicia Lee, after their relationship ended.

Agarwal argued that expenses incurred during their relationship were loans that Lee was required to repay. The Singapore High Court rejected the claim, finding that the disputed payments were gifts rather than loans, according to the judgment cited by BBC and CNN.

The case covered luxury purchases, overseas travel, insurance, education and other personal expenses.

How the relationship began

Agarwal and Lee first met on a flight in 2019, according to the court judgment. Lee had worked as a flight attendant before moving into roles as an insurance agent and medical sales officer.

The two began a romantic relationship in September 2022, which continued until around December 2023. Agarwal later suspected Lee of infidelity, and the relationship ended.

He filed the lawsuit in March 2024.

The court noted that Agarwal's spending on Lee had begun even before the two formally became a couple. In August 2022, he bought her a Singapore Airlines Suites Class ticket to New Delhi and later paid for flights and accommodation during a European trip.

He also bought luxury items from brands including Hermès, Celine, Dior and Prada.

In September 2022, Agarwal told Lee she should not be shy about using his money if they were together. He also voluntarily offered her a budget for taxi fares, dining and beauty expenses.

What did the ₹3.5 crore claim cover?

Agarwal sought to recover about S$206,000 in credit-card expenses and approximately S$129,000 spent on foreign trips.

His claim also included around S$20,000 for Lee's annual life insurance premium, along with expenses related to a university programme and feng shui services.

One of the individual claims involved S$16,776 spent on feng shui services for Lee's home.

Agarwal argued that this expenditure should be treated as a loan because he was Indian and did not believe in feng shui. Lee denied asking him to borrow the money.

The court, however, found that WhatsApp messages showed Agarwal had raised the subject himself and offered to pay for the feng shui work.

CNN reported that the feng shui master was engaged to “spiritually harmonise” Lee's flat.

Court finds spending was not established as loans

The central question before the court was whether Agarwal had evidence showing that the money was provided as loans and that Lee had agreed to repay it.

The judge found that he had failed to establish either.

Despite the couple exchanging numerous WhatsApp messages, the court found no convincing written evidence documenting loan arrangements for the disputed payments.

The judge said Agarwal, “smitten” with Lee, had “showered her with expensive gifts” during their relationship.

The judgment also noted that Lee had sometimes shown what it described as “spontaneous reluctance to accept” the expensive gifts.

The judge questioned why Lee, whom he described as earning a relatively modest salary compared with Agarwal, would repeatedly borrow large sums to purchase luxury items.

It was “incredible”, the judge said, that Agarwal could not identify written evidence supporting his claim that the payments were loans despite the couple having been together for more than a year and exchanging numerous WhatsApp messages.

Handwritten agreement does not help CEO's case

Agarwal also relied on a handwritten agreement that he said contained signatures supporting his claim. Lee denied signing the document.

The judge ultimately found it unsafe to conclude that Lee had signed it and said the document provided little assistance to Agarwal's case.

The court also considered a later note signed by Agarwal stating that he would not ask Lee to return items he had given her out of his “goodwill and generosity”.

Judge questions change in Agarwal's position

Another issue was Agarwal's treatment of expenses before and after the relationship began.

The judge was critical of his position that money he willingly spent before the relationship constituted gifts, while similar spending after they became a couple should be treated as loans.

The judgment described Agarwal's evidence during the trial as “illogical and often evasive” and said some of his positions were contrary to common sense and unsustainable.

The court described Agarwal as a man of “ample means” with expensive tastes, while noting that Lee was not in the same financial league.

Court dismisses S$468,090 claim

The judge concluded that Agarwal's attitude towards the money appeared to have changed after the relationship ended.

According to the judgment, he had willingly spent heavily on Lee while they were together but later sought to recover the money by characterising the payments as loans.

The judge said Agarwal, who had been “smitten” with Lee and had “showered her with expensive gifts”, appeared to have become embittered following the breakup and determined to recover the money.

The court dismissed his claim, meaning Agarwal cannot recover the S$468,090 he had sought from his former girlfriend.

Judge ends judgment with quote on love and hatred

In concluding the judgment, Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin quoted English playwright William Congreve, “Heav’n has no rage, like love to hatred turn’d, nor hell a fury like a woman scorn’d.”

The judge then added, “This case shows that such emotion is not the sole province of one gender.”