The Singapore High Court dismissed a case in which the CEO of a prominent listed company sought to recover SGD 468,090 (approximately 12.2 million baht) from his ex-girlfriend after their breakup. The court clarified that this amount was a "gift given with affection," not a loan requiring repayment. It also noted that he "was in love" with her and spent generously on her before their relationship ended acrimoniously, which changed his attitude.
The Singapore High Court ruled against the claim of Chander Agarwal, CEO and managing director of TCI Express, a company listed on the National Stock Exchange of India and the Bombay Stock Exchange. Agarwal had sued to recover SGD 468,090 (approximately 12.2 million baht) from his ex-girlfriend, alleging it was money lent during their relationship and should be repaid.
Senior Judge Lee Siu Kin issued a written ruling stating that most of the money Agarwal gave to his ex-girlfriend Felicia Lee was a "gift" given willingly, not a loan.
The expenses included credit card charges of about SGD 206,000, overseas travel costs around SGD 129,000, feng shui consultant fees for her residence of SGD 17,000, and executive education tuition fees at Stanford University and the National University of Singapore totaling SGD 30,000.
Regarding two other sums Agarwal claimed as loans, the court found he could not prove he actually gave that money to her. This included SGD 50,000 he said she used to pay off debts to a former employer. The judge also stated Agarwal failed to show any evidence that his ex-girlfriend requested these sums as loans or agreed to repay them.
The judge said the evidence clearly showed that Agarwal, who "was in love" with the woman, gave her many expensive gifts throughout the relationship. However, when their relationship ended in conflict, he became resentful and sought to reclaim value from her.
The judge also cited a line from the 1697 play The Mourning Bride to reflect the emotions involved, noting this case shows such feelings are not exclusive to any one gender.
Agarwal met Lee, who had worked as a flight attendant before switching careers to insurance agent and medical sales representative, on a flight in 2019. He later contacted her via Facebook, and they began meeting. They started dating in September 2022 and ended the relationship in December 2023 after Agarwal suspected she was unfaithful. He filed the lawsuit in March 2024.
However, even before they started dating, Agarwal had given Lee many expensive gifts without expecting repayment. These included hiring limousines to drive her home after meals, purchasing luxury goods from brands like Hermès, Louis Vuitton, and Prada, and covering nearly all expenses on their joint European trips.
In May 2021, after Lee messaged on WhatsApp that she had not flown for years, Agarwal replied that she would be traveling soon. He said he had booked first-class or suite tickets for her and that she could use a private plane if she wished. Later in August 2022, Lee asked how she could repay Agarwal, to which he responded, "No need, I'm not a loan creditor."
After they began dating in September 2022, Agarwal told her not to hesitate to use his money if they were “together,” offering a monthly allowance of SGD 1,500 for taxi, food, and beauty expenses.
In December that year, he also offered her an American Express Centurion card, messaging that she didn’t need to limit her spending and could buy anything she wanted. Another message said he wanted her to “indulge herself.”
During the trial, Agarwal presented a handwritten document he claimed was an agreement signed by Lee, stating that monthly sums of SGD 10,000–25,000 she received from him were "deposits" still belonging to him. Lee denied signing or ever seeing the document until the lawsuit began.
The judge found suspicious circumstances around the document’s submission and gave limited weight to the handwriting expert’s opinion that the signature was Lee’s.
Furthermore, although Agarwal relied heavily on this document in his claim, he did not mention it in his initial complaint, stating at that time he never insisted on a formal written agreement. He only cited the document seven months later when filing an amended complaint.
The judge noted that the document’s content contradicted facts, as Lee did not receive SGD 10,000–25,000 every month as stated, but rather various amounts occasionally for different purposes.
Importantly, in May 2023, Agarwal signed another statement promising not to demand back any gifts or benefits given to Lee out of goodwill. The judge ruled this later document superseded any prior agreements.
Under cross-examination, Agarwal said that once they started dating, "everything became a loan, everything was a transaction," but it was not so beforehand. He also said that once Lee accepted his offer to cover expenses, the money automatically became a loan.
However, the judge considered this position illogical and inadmissible, as there was no evidence that the couple agreed money given for living or shopping expenses would automatically turn into loans.
The judge further found Agarwal likely avoided facts when faced with unfavorable evidence in court, especially messages where he offered Lee money for her benefit and affirmed she was not required to repay him.
The court also rejected Agarwal’s claim that Lee deceived him into giving money by creating a false impression of a serious and exclusive relationship and by leading him to believe she would repay the money.
The judge stated that Agarwal’s behavior throughout the relationship appeared consistent with his prior relationship patterns before they started dating.
Moreover, evidence showed Agarwal had sexual relationships with other women during his time with Lee, further casting doubt on whether he viewed their relationship as serious and exclusive. Ultimately, the court ruled most of the money Agarwal sought to recover was voluntarily given as gifts and not loans, and therefore not recoverable.