Through the decision in Rhutikumari v Zanmai Labs and Ors (2025), the Madras High Court has said cryptocurrency is a property, although not a tangible property, and not a currency. It is capable of being enjoyed, possessed in a beneficial form and held in trust. The court also reiterated that a cryptocurrency is a virtual digital asset under Indian law.
The court relied on a New Zealand High Court decision in Ruscoe v Cryptodira (In Liquidation) (2020), among others, to arrive at its ruling.
Respondent Zanmai Labs is the company behind the cryptocurrency exchange platform WazirX. The matter arose when the applicant filed an injunction order against the respondent to protect their 3,532.50 XRP coins, purchased in January 2024 through an investment of INR198,516 (USD2,235) on the respondent’s platform. The coins belonged to the applicant and were kept in the custody of the respondent, where the value of the coins would fluctuate as per the market. XRP is a type of cryptocurrency.
The value of the coins on 17 January 2025, a year after the applicant purchased them, was INR955,148.
On 18 July 2024, the respondent company announced that it had faced a cyberattack and suffered a loss of ERC-20 cryptocurrency coins valued at USD230 million. It then froze all depositor accounts to prevent further trading or liquidation of the cryptocurrency, including the applicant Rhutikumari’s account, thereby preventing her access to it.
Cryptocurrencies were kept by the respondents in different digital wallets based on the type and other requirements of such wallets.
The respondents, being a Singapore-based company, initiated liquidation proceedings before the Singaporean authorities, which included matters dealing with the loss from the cyberattack. During the proceedings, the Singapore High Court passed a resolution scheme of arrangement dated 13 October 2025, where the investors shall be paid on a pro-rata basis.
The respondent also objected to the application’s filing before the court, citing that, as per the user agreement between the parties, disputes were to be resolved through arbitration under the rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, with Singapore as the arbitration seat. However, the court, relying on the judgment in PASL Wind Solutions v GE Power Conversion India (2021), held that the application was maintainable before the court.
The court, while considering the case, said the type of cryptocurrency stolen in the cyberattack was entirely different from that held by the applicant.
However, it granted the application and directed the respondent company to provide a bank guarantee of INR956,000 in favour of the applicant, to be renewed until the end of the arbitration proceedings.
