Hell hath no fury like a man scorned: CEO’s S$468,000 suit against ex fails after relationship sours
Judge says evidence clearly shows he was ‘smitten’ and had ‘showered her with expensive gifts’
[SINGAPORE] Infatuated with a former flight attendant he met on a flight, the chief executive of a listed company claimed to have spent more than S$468,000 on the woman, only to sue her for its return after their relationship soured.
But the High Court dismissed Chander Agarwal’s claims, finding that the money he spent on his former girlfriend, Felicia Lee, was given as gifts rather than loans.
Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin said in his grounds of decision released on Wednesday (Sep 9) that the evidence clearly showed Agarwal was “smitten” by Lee and had “showered her with expensive gifts during their relationship”.
Agarwal, the chief executive officer and managing director of India-listed TCI Express Limited, met Lee on a flight in 2019. The pair began a romantic relationship in September 2022, which lasted until around December 2023.
Agarwal brought the action in March 2024, after discovering that Lee had been “seriously dating another man” since April 2023. He claimed that she had requested various interest-free loans from him and owed him S$468,090.
The sum comprised 11 items, ranging from credit card bills to business and personal expenses.
These included about S$30,000 for Lee’s fees for a Stanford-NUS executive programme in International Management, S$15,000 to incorporate her fashion design company, Jadefe, and S$17,000 to engage a feng shui master for her flat.
Agarwal also claimed about S$50,000 for first-class tickets to the United States in April 2023, and another S$64,504 for personal shopping expenses during a subsequent US trip in November.
He further alleged that Lee had misled him into giving her the money by falsely representing that their relationship was genuine and exclusive, and that she had sufficient funds to repay him.
“Gifts, not loans”
But the judge rejected Agarwal’s characterisation of the expenses as loans, pointing to a pattern of lavish spending on Lee that began even before they became a couple.
Before their relationship, Agarwal had bought Lee gifts including a Louis Vuitton handbag, an Apple Hermes watch and S$2,000 worth of Prada vouchers.
In January 2022, he also paid for their dinner and a bottle of Cristal champagne at the Grand Hyatt Singapore, before arranging a limousine to send Lee home.
When Lee asked him in August that year how she could repay him for the many things he had bought her, Agarwal replied: “No need. I am not a money lender.”
The pattern continued after they became a couple. In a WhatsApp exchange in September 2022, Lee told Agarwal that she was “shy” to use his money and did not want to owe him too much.
“If we (are) together then why (are we) shy,” Agarwal replied, adding that this was not “an accounting system”.
He then offered her a monthly budget of S$1,500 for taxi rides, dining and beauty expenses.
The judge noted that the “theme” running through Agarwal’s case was his position that once Lee accepted his offers to pay, the money “automatically became loans”.
Under cross-examination, Agarwal acknowledged that he had not told Lee before giving her the alleged loans that they were loans or had to be repaid.
The judge described his position as “contrary to common sense and unsustainable”, and found that Agarwal could not point to objective evidence that Lee had requested the interest-free loans or agreed to repay him.
The judge also rejected Agarwal’s reliance on a handwritten agreement which he said showed the disputed sums were loans, finding that it did not refer to any of the sums he was claiming.
Agarwal’s claim that Lee had misled him about the nature of their relationship similarly failed.
There was no objective evidence that the pair had discussed whether their relationship was serious or exclusive in its earlier months, the judge found.
Even after Agarwal suspected Lee of infidelity, he continued giving her money. On Dec 10, 2023, when he suspected her of cheating with another man, he was still offering her a S$2,000 budget for a birthday gift.
The judge also noted that Agarwal himself had sexual relations with other women on at least two occasions during their relationship, casting doubt on whether he considered it “genuine and exclusive”.
“Unfortunately, when their relationship ended on a sour note, (Agarwal) became embittered and was determined to extract a price from (Lee),” said the judge.
Citing English playwright William Congreve, he wrote: “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.”
