A relationship that involved luxury shopping, first-class travel and expensive personal expenses has ended with an unusual legal battle in Singapore. Indian-origin businessman Chander Agarwal, CEO and managing director of TCI Express, went to court seeking nearly S$468,090 (around ₹3.5 crore) from his former girlfriend, Felicia Lee.
His argument was simple: the money he had spent during their relationship was given as loans and should have been returned. The Singapore High Court, however, did not agree.
From a Flight Meeting to a Relationship
Agarwal and Lee first met on a flight in 2019. Their romantic relationship began in September 2022 and ended in December 2023 after Agarwal suspected Lee of being unfaithful.
During their time together, Agarwal paid for a wide range of expenses, including luxury products, overseas travel, insurance and other personal costs.
Luxury Spending Became the Centre of the Dispute
The expenses cited in court included payments for credit-card bills, foreign trips, life insurance and a university programme. Money was also spent on luxury brands such as Hermès, Dior and Prada.
One particularly unusual expense involved about S$17,000 for a feng shui master to work on Lee’s flat. Agarwal later argued that such spending should be treated as a loan.
Why the Court Rejected the Loan Argument
The major problem for Agarwal was evidence. The court found that he had not sufficiently demonstrated that Lee had requested these payments as loans or agreed to repay them.
The judge also noted that the couple had exchanged numerous WhatsApp messages, yet there was little written evidence supporting the claim that the large expenses were intended to be repaid.
Gifts, Not Loans
The court ultimately viewed most of the disputed spending as voluntary gifts made during the relationship. The judgment described a pattern in which Agarwal willingly paid for expensive items and experiences while the couple were together.
That distinction became crucial. Once the payments were viewed as gifts rather than loans, there was no basis for demanding their repayment simply because the relationship had ended.
A Breakup That Turned Into a Court Battle
The case also highlights how quickly the meaning of financial transactions can change after a relationship breaks down.
What may appear to one person as financial support or a gift during a relationship can later be described very differently when the relationship turns hostile. In this case, the court found Agarwal’s attempt to recover the money unsupported by sufficient evidence.
The Singapore High Court dismissed his claim and ordered him to pay Lee’s legal costs.
The Bigger Lesson
The unusual case offers a broader lesson about money and personal relationships: large financial transfers can become difficult to recover when there is no clear record showing that they were loans.
The ruling also shows why the distinction between a gift and a loan matters legally. A breakup may change the relationship, but it does not automatically change the nature of money that was voluntarily given during it.
For Agarwal, the expensive relationship ultimately became an even more expensive legal dispute.