A relationship that started with flights, luxurious presents and lavish spending ultimately discovered its manner right into a Singapore courtroom after an Indian-origin businessman sought to recuperate almost ₹3.5 crore he stated he had spent on his former girlfriend.Chander Agarwal, CEO and managing director of logistics firm TCI Categorical, had instructed the Singapore Excessive Court docket that the cash he spent on Felicia Lee throughout their relationship was not merely a collection of presents. He claimed the funds have been interest-free loans that she was presupposed to repay.Lee disagreed. Her place was that the cash and costly purchases had been given to her out of affection and affection, with no expectation of reimbursement.The case has attracted consideration due to its uncommon nature of dispute. However what did the court docket say and who did it finally aspect with? Right here’s the total story.
They met on a flight in 2019
Agarwal and the girl, Felicia Lee, met on a flight in 2019, as per a Cash Management report. He later contacted her on social media and the 2 started assembly. Their relationship turned romantic in September 2022.However Agarwal’s spending on Lee had began even earlier than they formally turned a pair. The judgment information an extended checklist of presents and experiences Agarwal had paid for, together with luxurious buying, first-class or suites-class flights, worldwide journey and costly dinners.
Luxurious presents have been among the many bills later disputed in court docket
Among the many presents talked about have been a Louis Vuitton purse, Prada vouchers and an Apple Hermès watch. He additionally paid for a Europe journey masking locations together with Barcelona, Lisbon and London, together with lodging and luxurious purchases.
Then the connection ended
The connection got here to an finish in December 2023 after Agarwal suspected Lee of being untrue. What had as soon as been spending between two folks in a relationship quickly acquired a really completely different which means. In March 2024, Agarwal filed a lawsuit searching for to recuperate varied quantities he stated he had spent on Lee. The whole declare was about SGD 468,090- which is greater than ₹3.5 crore.His argument was that the cash was not merely given away. He claimed the sums have been interest-free loans and that Lee was required to repay them. Lee disputed that account.Her place was basically that the cash had been spent on her as presents throughout their relationship and that there had been no settlement requiring her to return it.
The weird query earlier than the court docket
The case subsequently turned much less on whether or not Agarwal had really spent the cash and extra on why he had spent it. There was proof of the substantial sums concerned, however the court docket needed to decide whether or not these funds have been loans or presents.Throughout cross-examination, Agarwal reportedly stated that when they started courting, “all the things turned a mortgage, all the things was transactional”, whereas spending earlier than the connection had not been handled that manner.He additionally argued that when Lee accepted his provides to spend his cash, these bills might successfully develop into loans. That distinction turned essential to the case.
What the Singapore court docket stated
The Singapore Excessive Court docket ultimately rejected Agarwal’s declare, discovering that a lot of the disputed cash had been given as presents moderately than loans.In its September 9 judgment, the court docket famous that Agarwal had willingly spent giant quantities on Lee throughout their relationship and that the proof didn’t help his declare that the cash was meant to be repaid.The choose additionally discovered it tough to just accept the argument that merely accepting somebody’s provide to spend cash might mechanically flip that spending right into a mortgage.In line with Moneycontrol, Senior Decide Lee Seiu Kin described the proof as displaying that Agarwal had “showered her with costly presents” throughout the relationship.The choose additional noticed that the dispute appeared to have taken a distinct flip after the connection ended, saying that Agarwal had develop into decided to recuperate a worth from Lee after the connection ended badly.The court docket finally dominated that the funds in query have been presents and dismissed his try and recuperate the cash. Agarwal was additionally ordered to pay Lee’s authorized prices.For a relationship that started with an opportunity assembly on a flight and unfolded by way of luxurious journeys, designer purchases and beneficiant spending, its ultimate chapter ended not over a romantic gesture, however over a really completely different question- whether or not these gestures have been ever meant to be paid again.