A relationship that began after a chance meeting on a flight ended in a Singapore courtroom, with an Indian-origin corporate executive seeking to recover hundreds of thousands of dollars he had spent on his former girlfriend. Chander Agarwal, CEO and managing director of logistics company TCI Express, claimed that S$468,090 (around Rs 3.5 crore) he had spent on Felicia Lee was given as interest-free loans. The Singapore High Court disagreed, ruling that most of the disputed payments were gifts made during their relationship.
The case involved luxury shopping, first-class travel, insurance, education, personal expenses and even feng shui services for Lee’s home. But after their relationship ended, Agarwal tried to establish that the money was never meant as a gift and should be repaid.
The court ultimately rejected that argument, finding that he could not produce convincing evidence that Lee had borrowed the money or agreed to return it.
Who is Chander Agarwal?
Chander Agarwal is the CEO and managing director of TCI Express Limited, an Indian logistics and express-delivery company. He is part of the Agarwal family associated with the Transport Corporation of India (TCI) group. Agarwal has held leadership roles at TCI Express, which specialises in express distribution and logistics services across India.
He has also been involved in the company’s international business and strategic expansion. In the Singapore case, Agarwal was the claimant seeking to recover S$468,090 that he said he had spent on his former girlfriend as loans.
How Chander Agarwal and Felicia Lee Met
Agarwal and Lee first met on a flight in 2019, when Lee worked as a flight attendant. Agarwal later contacted her through Facebook, and the two began meeting.
Their relationship eventually became romantic in September 2022. It lasted until around December 2023, when they separated after Agarwal suspected Lee of being unfaithful.
However, Agarwal had already been spending heavily on Lee before they officially became a couple.
He paid for flights, accommodation and luxury purchases, including products from brands such as Hermès, Celine, Dior and Prada.
Once the relationship began, the spending increased further.
Chander Agarwal and Felicia Lee: Luxury Gifts, First-Class Flights and Everyday Expenses
The court examined a long list of expenses that Agarwal later described as loans.
Among the disputed amounts was around S$206,000 in credit-card spending. He also claimed about S$129,000 had gone towards overseas trips.
The expenses included first-class flights to destinations such as the United States and Hong Kong, shopping during those trips and other personal costs.
Agarwal also paid around S$30,000 for Lee’s Stanford-NUS Executive Programme in International Management. The court additionally considered payments linked to her company, insurance and personal expenses.
At one point, Agarwal reportedly encouraged Lee to use his money and gave her a budget for routine expenses, including taxis, meals and beauty treatments.
The court later viewed this pattern of spending as evidence that Agarwal had willingly supported Lee during the relationship.
Chander Agarwal and Felicia Lee: The S$16,776 Feng Shui Bill
One of the more unusual expenses involved S$16,776 paid for feng shui services at Lee’s flat.
Agarwal argued that this amount should be treated as a loan because he did not believe in feng shui himself.
But the court did not accept that explanation.
According to the judgment, WhatsApp messages showed that Agarwal himself raised the subject and offered to pay for the service. The messages included his offer to arrange feng shui services for Lee’s new home.
The judge therefore found that Agarwal had paid the amount for Lee’s benefit as a gift.
The court also rejected Agarwal’s argument that his lack of belief in feng shui proved the payment had to be a loan. The judgment noted that he had himself engaged the feng shui master and had obtained similar services for his office.
Chander Agarwal and Felicia Lee: Why Did the Singapore Court Reject the S$468,090 Claim?
The central problem for Agarwal was evidence.
He had to establish that Lee had either asked to borrow the money or agreed to repay it. The court found that he failed to do so.
The couple had exchanged a large number of WhatsApp messages during their relationship. Yet Agarwal could not point to convincing written communication showing that the disputed expenses were loans.
Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin found that the evidence instead showed Agarwal had voluntarily spent money on Lee while they were together.
The judge said the evidence clearly showed that Agarwal, who was “smitten” with Lee, had “showered her with expensive gifts during their relationship”.
The judge also noted that Lee had at times shown reluctance to accept some of the expensive gifts.
Court Questions Why Lee Would Borrow So Much
The court also questioned the logic behind Agarwal’s claim that Lee had repeatedly borrowed large amounts to fund luxury purchases.
Lee had a significantly lower income than Agarwal, according to the judgment. The judge therefore questioned why she would repeatedly agree to borrow large sums for expensive items and travel.
The lack of documentation became even more significant because the relationship lasted for more than a year and the couple communicated extensively through WhatsApp.
The judgment described it as “incredible” that Agarwal could not identify written evidence supporting his claim that the payments were loans.
Disputed Handwritten Agreement
Agarwal also relied on a handwritten document that he said established a financial arrangement between the two.
Lee denied signing it.
The document stated that money Agarwal gave Lee every month belonged to him and would be returned when he needed it. But the judge concluded that it was unsafe to find that Lee had signed the document and therefore gave it little weight.
The court also considered another piece of evidence that worked against Agarwal’s position.
In a later note, Agarwal said he would not ask Lee to return items he had given her out of his “goodwill and generosity”.
That statement made it harder for him to argue that the spending had consistently been intended as repayable loans.
Judge Says Agarwal’s Position Changed After Breakup
The court also examined how Agarwal’s attitude appeared to change after the relationship ended.
Senior Judge Lee said Agarwal had willingly spent money on Lee while the relationship was going well but later became resentful after the breakup.
The judgment described his evidence during the trial as “illogical and often evasive” and found some of his arguments difficult to sustain.
The judge concluded that Agarwal had become embittered after the relationship ended and sought to recover money that he had previously spent voluntarily.
The court therefore dismissed his claim for S$468,090, leaving Lee under no obligation to repay the disputed amount.
Chander Agarwal and Felicia Lee: Judge Quotes William Congreve on Love and Anger
In the closing part of the judgment, Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin referred to a famous line from English playwright William Congreve about love turning into anger.
“Heav’n has no rage, like love to hatred turn’d, nor hell a fury like a woman scorn’d,” the judge quoted.
He then added: “This case shows that such emotion is not the sole province of one gender.”
The ruling brings the legal dispute to an end, with the Singapore High Court finding that the disputed spending was primarily made as gifts during the relationship rather than as loans that Lee was required to repay.
