A relationship that began with flights, luxury gifts and lavish spending eventually found its way into a Singapore courtroom after an Indian-origin businessman sought to recover nearly ₹3.5 crore he said he had spent on his former girlfriend.Chander Agarwal, CEO and managing director of logistics company TCI Express, had told the Singapore High Court that the money he spent on Felicia Lee during their relationship was not simply a series of gifts. He claimed the payments were interest-free loans that she was supposed to repay.Lee disagreed. Her position was that the money and expensive purchases had been given to her out of love and affection, with no expectation of repayment.The case has attracted attention because of its unusual nature of dispute. But what did the court say and who did it ultimately side with? Here’s the full story.
They met on a flight in 2019
Agarwal and the woman, Felicia Lee, met on a flight in 2019, as per a Money Control report. He later contacted her on social media and the two began meeting. Their relationship became romantic in September 2022.But Agarwal’s spending on Lee had started even before they officially became a couple. The judgment records a long list of gifts and experiences Agarwal had paid for, including luxury shopping, first-class or suites-class flights, international travel and expensive dinners.
Luxury gifts were among the expenses later disputed in court
Among the gifts mentioned were a Louis Vuitton handbag, Prada vouchers and an Apple Hermès watch. He also paid for a Europe trip covering destinations including Barcelona, Lisbon and London, along with accommodation and luxury purchases.
Then the relationship ended
The relationship came to an end in December 2023 after Agarwal suspected Lee of being unfaithful. What had once been spending between two people in a relationship soon acquired a very different meaning. In March 2024, Agarwal filed a lawsuit seeking to recover various amounts he said he had spent on Lee. The total claim was about SGD 468,090- which is more than ₹3.5 crore.His argument was that the money was not simply given away. He claimed the sums were interest-free loans and that Lee was required to repay them. Lee disputed that account.Her position was essentially that the money had been spent on her as gifts during their relationship and that there had been no agreement requiring her to return it.
The unusual question before the court
The case therefore turned less on whether Agarwal had actually spent the money and more on why he had spent it. There was evidence of the substantial sums involved, but the court had to determine whether those payments were loans or gifts.During cross-examination, Agarwal reportedly said that once they began dating, “everything became a loan, everything was transactional”, while spending before the relationship had not been treated that way.He also argued that once Lee accepted his offers to spend his money, those expenses could effectively become loans. That distinction became crucial to the case.
What the Singapore court said
The Singapore High Court eventually rejected Agarwal’s claim, finding that most of the disputed money had been given as gifts rather than loans.In its September 9 judgment, the court noted that Agarwal had willingly spent large amounts on Lee during their relationship and that the evidence did not support his claim that the money was meant to be repaid.The judge also found it difficult to accept the argument that simply accepting someone’s offer to spend money could automatically turn that spending into a loan.According to Moneycontrol, Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin described the evidence as showing that Agarwal had “showered her with expensive gifts” during the relationship.The judge further observed that the dispute appeared to have taken a different turn after the relationship ended, saying that Agarwal had become determined to recover a price from Lee after the relationship ended badly.The court ultimately ruled that the payments in question were gifts and dismissed his attempt to recover the money. Agarwal was also ordered to pay Lee’s legal costs.For a relationship that began with a chance meeting on a flight and unfolded through luxury trips, designer purchases and generous spending, its final chapter ended not over a romantic gesture, but over a very different question- whether those gestures were ever meant to be paid back.
