IN OCTOBER 2025, the Madras High Court took a noteworthy step in India’s crypto framework. The High Court had to decide on whether a digital token – bought on a Mumbai-based exchange and lost in a cyber-attack – could be treated as “property” under Indian law.
The plaintiff, Rhutikumari, had invested in Ripple XRP coins on WazirX, a bitcoin and crypto exchange trading platform. WazirX’s parent (Zanmai Labs) stopped all trading and her holdings were frozen subsequent to a major cyber-attack (the company lost USD 230 Million). By user agreement, she had to face a Singapore-seated arbitration scheme that would distribute user losses to make good losses. She had one option - to turn to the Madras High Court bench under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to protect her coins.
The High Court had to answer stark questions: Could an Indian court even intervene when a foreign court’s scheme loomed? Were Rhutikumari’s XRP holdings her property? Did the exchange owe her a duty of trust?
It held that cryptocurrencies are indeed “property”, intangible wealth deserving legal protection, and that exchanges must treat user assets as held in trust. It brushed aside technical objections about Singapore arbitration and the exercise of jurisdiction.
The judgment, authored by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, exposes a gap in India’s legal framework and implicitly urges legislators to step in. In the absence of clear laws, the High Court had built its own framework from first principles, making this an important ruling for digital assets and investor rights.
