An Indian listed-company boss who tried to recover S$468,090 from his former girlfriend has had his claims dismissed by the Singapore High Court.
Chander Agarwal, whom the judgment identified as the chief executive officer and managing director of TCI Express Limited, argued that money he spent on Felicia Lee during their relationship consisted of interest-free loans which she had to repay.
Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin disagreed, finding that the evidence showed Agarwal had intended the spending to be gifts.
The couple met on a flight in 2019 and started seeing each other before entering a romantic relationship in September 2022. They broke up around December 2023 after Agarwal suspected Lee of being unfaithful.
He filed the lawsuit in March 2024.
Claim Included Credit Cards, First-Class Flights and Feng Shui
The S$468,090 claim covered a rather wide range of expenses.
Agarwal claimed S$151,658 in spending on an American Express Centurion card, about S$31,000 on a corporate American Express card and roughly S$20,980 on a Citibank card.
He also sought about S$20,000 for Lee’s life insurance premiums and S$50,000 which he said was given to settle money she owed her former employer, Manulife.
Other disputed expenses included around S$17,000 for feng shui services at Lee’s flat, about S$50,000 for first-class tickets to the US, S$64,504 in shopping expenses there, and another S$15,000 for first-class tickets and spending during a Hong Kong trip.
Agarwal also sought about S$15,000 spent on setting up Lee’s company, almost S$3,000 charged to another American Express card and roughly S$30,000 for a Stanford-NUS executive programme.
But the court found problems with both the amounts claimed and the argument that they were loans.
For example, Agarwal conceded during the trial that his documents supported only about S$34,264 for the US air tickets, rather than the S$50,000 he claimed.
For the alleged S$50,000 Manulife payment, the court found insufficient evidence that Agarwal had even given Lee that amount.
Messages Showed He Had Been Offering to Pay
The couple’s WhatsApp conversations became important evidence.
Even before they officially became a couple, Agarwal had paid for expensive meals and trips and bought Lee gifts including a Louis Vuitton handbag and an Apple Hermes watch.
At one point, Lee asked how she could repay him for buying her so many things. His response included: “No need. I am not a money lender.”
After they started dating, messages showed Agarwal continuing to offer money for her expenses, including dining, taxis, beauty treatments and insurance.
The judge noted that Agarwal’s position at trial was effectively that his spending before the relationship consisted of gifts, but once they started dating, such spending became loans.
He also accepted under cross-examination that he had not necessarily told Lee beforehand that the money was a loan or given her repayment terms.
The court found that position did not make sense when considered alongside the messages between them.
Handwritten Agreement Did Not Save His Case
Agarwal relied heavily on a handwritten document which he said supported his claim that the money was repayable.
Lee denied signing or even seeing it before the proceedings.
Although a jointly appointed handwriting expert considered the disputed signature genuine, the judge identified limitations in that analysis and found it unsafe to conclude that Lee had signed the document.
There was another problem for Agarwal.
Lee produced a later note dated 26 May 2023 in which Agarwal said he would not seek the return of her car or items he had given her out of his goodwill and generosity.
The judge found that even if the earlier handwritten agreement were genuine and binding, the later document had superseded it.
Other Attempts to Recover the Money Also Failed
Agarwal alternatively argued that Lee had misrepresented their relationship and her ability or intention to repay him.
Those claims were also rejected.
The court found insufficient evidence that Lee had represented their relationship in the way Agarwal alleged, or that she had made the claimed promises about repayment.
His unjust enrichment argument also failed. In simple terms, unjust enrichment can allow someone to recover a benefit unfairly retained by another person in certain circumstances.
But since the court found that the money was given as gifts rather than under a shared understanding that it would later be repaid, that route was not available either.
The court similarly rejected Agarwal’s argument that Lee had engaged in a scheme of financial exploitation that justified imposing a constructive trust over the benefits she received.
Senior Judge Lee ultimately found that Agarwal had been strongly attracted to Lee and had voluntarily spent substantial amounts on her during their relationship.
All of Agarwal’s claims were dismissed. He was also ordered to pay Lee’s legal costs at the standard rate, unless the parties agree on the amount or the court orders otherwise.
