Indian-origin CEO sues ex‑girlfriend in Singapore to recover ₹3.5 crore

Chander Agarwal, chief executive officer of an Indian logistics company, has lost a Singapore High Court case in which he sought to recover S$468,090 (around Rs 3.5 crore) that he had spent on his former girlfriend during their relationship, arguing that the money had been given to her as loans.

The BBC reported that Singaporean businessman Agarwal, who is also the managing director of TCI Express, sued his former girlfriend, Felicia Lee, after their relationship ended, seeking to recover the money he claimed she owed him. The Singapore High Court dismissed his claim, finding that the disputed sums were gifts rather than loans.

CNN reported that Agarwal had showered Lee with luxury items from Hermès, Dior and Prada, while also spending tens of thousands of dollars on first-class air tickets. He also claimed to have paid for her life insurance, a university programme and personal expenses charged to his American Express card. .

Singapore High Court · Sept 9, 2026 S$468,090: what the CEO wanted back Chander Agarwal, CEO of India’s TCI Express, sued his ex-girlfriend Felicia Lee to recover everything he had spent on her during their relationship. The court said none of it was a loan. S$468,090 Total amount Agarwal tried to reclaim S$206,000 Credit-card spending S$129,000 Overseas trips S$30,000 Stanford-NUS programme fees S$17,000 Feng shui master, for her flat Loan?

No Gift? Yes Timeline The spending Why not a loan The verdict Who is Agarwal From lavish gifts to a lawsuit 2019 They meet on a flight Agarwal, an Indian logistics-company CEO, and Lee, then a flight attendant, met on a flight. He later approached her on Facebook and they began meeting up — before any romantic relationship began.

Before Sept 2022 The gifts start before the relationship does The court heard Agarwal had already given Lee expensive gifts, including luxury items, and had paid most of the costs of a European trip — all before they were officially a couple. September 2022 The relationship begins The two entered a romantic relationship.

Around this time, Agarwal told Lee not to be shy about using his money, offering a monthly budget for everyday expenses on top of the larger sums that followed. 2022–2023 The spending piles up Credit-card spending, overseas trips, a university programme, a feng shui master and life insurance premiums — the sums that would later form the S$468,090 claim.

December 2023 The relationship ends The couple broke up after Agarwal suspected Lee of infidelity. March 2024 Agarwal files the lawsuit He sought to recover the money as loans, later also pointing to an additional S$50,000 he said he had lent Lee to clear a debt to her former employer.

September 9, 2026 The court dismisses the claim Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin ruled the sums were gifts, not loans. Agarwal also failed to prove the separate S$50,000 debt-clearance sum was ever a loan. What the S$468,090 claim covered Credit-card spendingS$206,000 Lee’s personal expenses charged to Agarwal’s American Express card.

Overseas tripsS$129,000 Included tens of thousands spent on first-class flight tickets. Stanford-NUS programmeS$30,000 Fees for an executive education programme. Feng shui masterS$17,000 Paid to “spiritually harmonise” Lee’s flat. Life insurance premiums— Confirmed as part of the claim across multiple reports; no outlet checked gives a specific figure for this line.

Amount unconfirmed The gifts, by name CNN’s report names Hermes, Dior and Prada items among the gifts. The Straits Times’ account, as carried by Malay Mail, names Hermes, Louis Vuitton and Prada specifically for the gifts given before the relationship began. Both are on record; outlets differ on the second brand.

Why the court said it wasn’t a loan No repayment proof The judge found no evidence that Lee had ever requested the money as loans, or agreed to repay any of it. His own messages undercut him When Lee asked in August 2022 how she could repay him, Agarwal himself replied that there was no need, saying he was “not a moneylender.” The pattern predates the relationship Because Agarwal was already giving Lee expensive gifts before they were dating, the court treated the later spending as a continuation of that pattern, not a lending arrangement.

A disputed handwritten agreement Agarwal produced a handwritten document with both signatures to support his claim. Lee denied signing it, and the judge found its terms — a fixed monthly sum — did not match the irregular, varied payments actually made. A specific argument, rejected Agarwal separately argued the feng shui spending in particular “must have been a loan,” since he said he personally does not believe in the practice.

The judge did not accept this as evidence of a loan. The court’s reading of the relationship On Agarwal’s state of mind The judge found Agarwal was “smitten” by Lee and had showered her with expensive gifts during the relationship, and that he turned bitter once it ended. On the fallback claim Agarwal also argued Lee had misrepresented an exclusive relationship to induce his spending.

The judge rejected this too, noting evidence that Agarwal himself had relationships with other women during the same period. A literary aside The judgment quoted the line about hell having no fury like a woman scorned — and added that this case shows such emotion is not the sole province of one gender.

Bottom line The claim for S$468,090 was dismissed in full. Lee owes Agarwal nothing from the relationship; the money spent during it stands as gifts, not debt. Who is Chander Agarwal 1. Runs a listed Indian logistics giant He is CEO and Managing Director of TCI Express Ltd, part of the TCI Group, one of India’s largest express and multimodal logistics companies. 2.

The company trades on both major Indian exchanges TCI Express is listed on both the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). 3. US-educated, with executive programmes since He studied business administration at Bryant University in Rhode Island, and later completed executive programmes at Harvard Business School and the National University of Singapore. 4.

A career built inside the family business He joined the TCI Group in the 1990s, working across operations, logistics and marketing, before going on to lead TCI Express as Managing Director. 5. Built out a nationwide delivery network Under his leadership, TCI Express has grown to nearly 1,000 branches and more than 60,000 pickup and delivery points across India.

Company biographies differ on the exact year he was appointed Managing Director of TCI Express (accounts range from 2008 to 2016); this build does not state a single year for that appointment. Figures and quotes are drawn from court-document reporting and the written judgment as reported by news outlets, not the judgment text itself.

Where outlets differed on detail, both versions are noted. Sources: CNN (Laura Sharman); The Straits Times, as reported by Malay Mail; AsiaOne; The Star (Malaysia); Goody Feed; aggregated court-document reporting. Corporate biography drawn from TCI Express company profiles, Bloomberg, and MarketScreener.

Judgment delivered September 9, 2026. Compiled September 12, 2026. Express InfoGenIE · Global Desk . From a flight meeting to a relationship Agarwal and Lee first met on a flight in 2019, according to the court judgment. Lee was a former flight attendant who later worked as an insurance agent and medical sales officer.

The two began a romantic relationship in September 2022 and remained together until around December 2023. Agarwal subsequently suspected Lee of infidelity, and the relationship ended. He filed the lawsuit in March 2024. The relationship had already involved substantial spending even before they formally began dating.

The court said Agarwal had bought Lee a Singapore Airlines Suites Class ticket to New Delhi in August 2022 and took her on a European trip, paying for flights and accommodation and buying her expensive gifts from brands including Hermès, Celine, Dior and Prada. The court also noted that Agarwal had told Lee in September 2022 that she should not be shy about using his money if they were together, and voluntarily offered her a budget for taxi, dining and beauty expenses.

What did Agarwal want back? Agarwal claimed that the spending during their relationship represented interest-free loans that Lee was required to repay. His claim covered about S$206,000 in credit-card expenses, around S$129,000 spent on foreign trips, about S$20,000 for Lee's annual life insurance premium and other expenses, including money spent on a university programme and a feng shui service, CNN reported.

One of the more unusual claims involved S$16,776 spent on feng shui services for Lee's home. According to the judgment, Agarwal argued that the amount must have been a loan because he was Indian and did not believe in feng shui. Lee disputed that she had asked to borrow the money.

The court found that the WhatsApp messages showed Agarwal himself had raised the subject and offered to pay for the feng shui work. CNN reported that the feng shui master was engaged to “spiritually harmonise” Lee's flat. Why did the court reject the claim? The central problem for Agarwal was evidence.

The judge found that he could not establish that Lee had requested the disputed sums as loans or agreed to repay them. There was also no convincing written evidence recording such arrangements, despite the couple having exchanged numerous WhatsApp messages. The judge said the evidence showed that Agarwal, “smitten” with Lee, had “showered her with expensive gifts” during their relationship.

He also noted that Lee had sometimes shown what the judgment described as “spontaneous reluctance to accept” the expensive gifts. The judge questioned why Lee, whom he described as having a relatively modest salary compared with Agarwal, would repeatedly borrow large amounts of money to buy luxury goods.

He said it was “incredible” that, despite the couple having been together for more than a year and exchanging so many WhatsApp messages, Agarwal could not point to written evidence supporting his claim that the payments were loans. The handwritten agreement Agarwal also produced a handwritten agreement that he said carried signatures supporting his claim.

Lee denied signing the document. The judge ultimately found it unsafe to conclude that she had signed it and gave the document little assistance to Agarwal's case. The court also considered a later note signed by Agarwal in which he said he would not ask Lee to return items he had given her out of his “goodwill and generosity”.

Judge says Agarwal's arguments were unsustainable The judge was particularly critical of Agarwal's position that expenses he had willingly paid before the relationship were gifts, but that similar spending after they began dating should suddenly be treated as loans. The judgment described his evidence during the trial as “illogical and often evasive” and said some of his positions were contrary to common sense and unsustainable.

The court also found that Agarwal was a man of “ample means” with expensive tastes, while Lee was not in the same financial league. When lavish gifts turned into a court battle The judge said Agarwal’s attitude towards the money appeared to change after the relationship ended. He had willingly spent heavily on Lee during their time together, but later sought to recover the money, arguing that it had been given to her as loans.

The judge said Agarwal, who had been “smitten” with Lee and had “showered her with expensive gifts”, appeared to have become embittered after their breakup and was determined to get the money back. The court dismissed his claim, meaning Agarwal cannot recover the S$468,090 he had sought from his former girlfriend.

Judge ends with a line about love turning to hatred In a conclusion to the judgment, as reported by CNN, Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin quoted English playwright William Congreve, “Heav’n has no rage, like love to hatred turn’d, nor hell a fury like a woman scorn’d.” The judge then added, “This case shows that such emotion is not the sole province of one gender.”