Indian-Origin CEO Spent ₹3.5 Crore On Girlfriend, Then Sued To Recover It After Breakup; Singapore HC Rejects Claim

The Singapore High Court on September 9 dismissed a claim by Chander Agarwal, CEO and Managing Director of Indian logistics company TCI Express Limited, seeking to recover S$468,090 (around ₹3.5 crore) from his former girlfriend, holding that the money he spent on her during their relationship was given as gifts and not loans.

Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin delivered the judgment in the case. Agarwal had sued Lee Xiu Hui Felicia after their relationship ended in December 2023, claiming that various sums he had spent on her were interest-free loans which she was required to repay.

Judge Kin also quoted William Congreve's words in The Mourning Bride: Heav'n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn'd, Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn'd.

"This case shows that such emotion is not the sole province of one gender", Judge Kin remarked.

The Court noted that the parties had been in a romantic relationship from September 2022 until around December 2023. Agarwal brought the action in March 2024, claiming a total of S$468,090.

The disputed sums included S$151,658 in personal expenses charged to his AMEX Centurion card, about S$31,000 on his AMEX Corporate card, around S$20,000 in life insurance premiums, about S$20,980 in Citibank expenses, S$50,000 allegedly given to repay a debt owed by Lee to her former employer, approximately S$17,000 for feng shui services, around S$114,500 for US travel and shopping, expenses on a Hong Kong trip, company incorporation costs and about S$30,000 towards a Stanford-NUS executive programme.

The Court found a fundamental issue in Agarwal's case which was that he could not point to objective evidence showing that Lee had requested the disputed amounts as loans or agreed to repay them.

"[A] significant weakness in the Claimant’s case is his inability to point to any documentary evidence, other than the Handwritten Agreement, to show that the Defendant had at any point requested the Disputed Sums as loans or agreed to repay him," the Court said.

The judge also highlighted Agarwal's conduct even before the relationship began. The evidence showed that he had routinely given Lee expensive gifts and, when she expressed discomfort about the money being spent on her, reassured her that repayment was not expected.

In one WhatsApp exchange, after Lee asked, "U bought so many things for me. How to repay you", Agarwal replied: “No need. I am not a money lender.”

The Court found that this pattern continued during the relationship. Agarwal frequently offered or encouraged Lee to use his money, including for luxury purchases, travel, insurance and other expenses.

The judge described Agarwal's position as "counterintuitive": before the relationship, the expenses were gifts, but according to his case, they automatically became loans once the parties began dating.

"With respect, these positions are contrary to common sense and unsustainable," the Court said, adding that they were "likely the Claimant’s attempts to evade the cross-examiner’s questions" when confronted with evidence of his repeated offers to spend money on Lee and assurances that she did not need to repay him.

The Court examined the different categories of expenses separately and repeatedly found no objective evidence of a loan arrangement.

Regarding the life insurance payments, for instance, the judge found a "clear pattern" of Agarwal willingly paying for Lee, including messages in which he offered, and even insisted, that she use his money for insurance. The Court concluded that there was no evidence that she had requested the money as a loan or agreed to repay it, and held that the payments were gifts.

Similarly, the Court rejected his claims concerning Citibank expenses, feng shui services, US travel and shopping, and the Stanford-NUS program.

Regarding the latter, the Court rejected the argument that money spent on Lee's professional advancement could not constitute a gift. It held that, in the absence of objective evidence that she had requested an interest-free loan or promised repayment, the program expenses were also gifts.

Agarwal also relied on a handwritten document that purportedly recorded that Lee was receiving monthly amounts of S$10,000 to S$25,000, which belonged to him and were to be returned when required.

The Court, however, found the circumstances surrounding the document 'suspect' and noted that it did not identify any of the disputed sums. It also found that the document's terms were inconsistent with the evidence and even with Agarwal's own case.

The Court further rejected Agarwal's claims of misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, finding that there was insufficient evidence that Lee had represented that theirs was a genuine and exclusive relationship or that she would repay the money.

The judge ultimately concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly pointed towards the sums being gifts.

"The evidence before me clearly show that the Claimant, smitten by the Defendant, had showered her with expensive gifts during their relationship," the Court observed.

The Court added that Agarwal, as CEO of a listed company, was “a man of ample means who has expensive tastes”, while Lee was not in the same financial position and had at times expressed reluctance about accepting his expensive gifts.

But after the relationship ended badly, the judge found that Agarwal became determined to recover the money.

"Unfortunately, when their relationship ended on a sour note, the Claimant became embittered and was determined to extract a price from her," the Court said.

The Court dismissed all of Agarwal's claims and ordered him to pay Lee's costs at the standard rate, subject to taxation if the parties could not agree.

Case title - Chander Agarwal v Lee Xiu Hui Felicia