In September 2026, Indian logistics chief executive Chander Agarwal lost his bid in Singapore's High Court to recover nearly S$468,000 from his former girlfriend Felicia Lee, after a judge ruled that the luxury gifts he had showered on her were exactly that: gifts, not loans. Agarwal had claimed that high-end items from Hermes, Dior and Prada, along with first-class flights and other lavish spending, were interest-free loans that Lee was obliged to repay once their relationship ended.

The court disagreed emphatically. In a judgment delivered on September 9, Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin held that most of the money in dispute had been given as gifts and that the evidence did not support Agarwal's claim that repayment had ever been intended. The judge observed that Agarwal had been smitten with Lee and had showered her with expensive gifts throughout the relationship, a pattern inconsistent with the idea of enforceable loans. He also rejected Agarwal's argument that Lee's acceptance of his offers to pay for things had effectively converted the spending into debt, ruling that merely accepting generosity could not create an obligation to repay.

The pair's story had begun in 2019, when they met on a flight while Lee was working as a flight attendant. They connected on social media and began meeting, with the relationship turning romantic in September 2022 and ending in December 2023 after Agarwal suspected Lee of infidelity. He filed the lawsuit in March 2024. The disputed expenditure included about S$206,000 in credit-card charges, S$129,000 on overseas trips, S$17,000 paid to a feng shui master for Lee's flat, and S$30,000 for a Stanford-NUS executive programme. The judge found Agarwal had failed even to prove he had given Lee two of the claimed sums, including S$50,000 he said was a loan to settle a debt to a former employer.

Agarwal's central argument, that everything he spent after the relationship began became transactional, was described as contrary to common sense. The court dismissed his claim entirely, along with alternative claims in misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and constructive trust, and ordered him to pay Lee's legal costs. The ruling drew attention well beyond Singapore, partly because of Agarwal's profile as head of a major listed Indian logistics company. For Lee, it ended a battle that could have left her liable for a fortune despite having done nothing more, in the court's assessment, than accept gifts freely offered by a man in love.