He paid for luxury trips, gave his girlfriend access to premium credit cards and paid for feng shui services for her home. But after the relationship ended, the chief executive of an Indian-listed company went to court seeking S$468,090 (about Dh1.34 million) back — arguing that the money he had spent on her amounted to loans.Singapore’s High Court rejected Chander Agarwal’s claims, finding that the evidence overwhelmingly showed that the disputed sums had been intended as gifts rather than loans.Agarwal, chief executive and managing director of TCI Express Limited, had sued his former girlfriend Felicia Lee after their relationship ended in December 2023. In a judgment issued on September 9, Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin dismissed his claims and ordered him to pay her costs.Met on a flightAccording to the High Court judgment, Agarwal and Lee first met on a flight in 2019, when she was working as a flight attendant.He subsequently contacted her through Facebook and the two became friends. Lee later worked as an insurance agent and medical sales officer.The court said they began a romantic relationship in September 2022. It ended in December 2023 after Agarwal suspected Lee of infidelity.He filed his lawsuit in March 2024, claiming that Lee had requested various interest-free loans from him during their relationship and owed him S$468,090.Lee denied this, maintaining that the money and benefits she received were gifts made out of love and affection and that she had never agreed to repay them.The amounts Agarwal sought to recover included sums he attributed to credit-card spending, overseas travel, insurance payments, feng shui services and an executive education programme.‘I am not a money lender’The court examined the couple’s WhatsApp exchanges and their pattern of spending to determine whether the transactions were really loans.The judgment showed that Agarwal had been giving Lee expensive gifts even before they became romantically involved.These included goods from luxury brands such as Hermes, Louis Vuitton and Prada. He also arranged a limousine to take her home after dinner and paid most of her expenses during a trip to Europe.In August 2022, before their relationship began, Lee asked how she could repay him for things he had bought for her.Agarwal replied: “No need. I am not a money lender”.After they became a couple, his spending continued.The court cited messages in which Agarwal offered Lee money for expenses including taxis, meals and beauty treatments.In December 2022, while discussing an American Express Centurion card, he told her: “You don’t have a budget now. Anything you want.”Another message read: “And spoil yourself too please.”The judge found that such exchanges were inconsistent with Agarwal’s later contention that the expenditure constituted loans.Disputed expensesAgarwal’s claim included S$151,658 that he attributed to spending on an American Express Centurion card. But the judgment highlighted discrepancies surrounding that figure. The judge also identified discrepancies in some of the travel-related amounts claimed.Agarwal additionally sought about S$17,000 relating to feng shui services for Lee’s home. The amount itself was disputed. The court found no evidence that Lee had requested the feng shui service on the basis that she would repay him and concluded that the payment was a gift.Agarwal also sought approximately S$30,000 connected with Lee’s participation in a Stanford-NUS executive programme.Handwritten agreementCentral to Agarwal’s attempt to establish that some of the money was repayable was a handwritten agreement that he said Lee had signed.Lee denied signing or seeing the document before the court proceedings.A jointly appointed handwriting expert gave an opinion supporting the disputed signature, but the judge identified significant limitations surrounding the analysis.Senior Judge Lee ultimately said it was “unsafe to conclude” that Lee had signed the agreement.The judge also found it suspicious that Agarwal had not referred to the document when he initially filed his claim. It was introduced about seven months later when his case was amended.The court also considered a subsequent promissory note signed by Agarwal in May 2023.In that document, he said he would never ask Lee to return her car or items given to her out of his goodwill and generosity.The judge found that the later promissory note superseded the handwritten agreement in any event.‘Everything became a loan’During cross-examination, Agarwal was questioned about his contention that the nature of his spending changed after the pair became romantically involved.“Everything became a loan, everything was transactional,” he told the court.‘Smitten’ CEO showered her with giftsIn dismissing the case, Senior Judge Lee said the evidence clearly showed that Agarwal, “smitten by the Defendant”, had showered Lee with expensive gifts during their relationship.“Unfortunately, when their relationship ended on a sour note, the Claimant became embittered and was determined to extract a price from her,” the judge said.The High Court dismissed Agarwal’s claims and ordered him to pay Lee’s legal costs at the standard rate, unless the parties sought a different order.