Madras High Court.
Madras High Court Recognizes Cryptocurrency as Property: Chennai, October 24, 2025: The Madras High Court ruled on the legal status of cryptocurrency, affirming that it qualifies as property under Indian law. The Court’s decision stems from a petition filed by an investor whose cryptocurrency holdings were frozen after a cyberattack on the WazirX platform in 2024. Justice Anand Venkatesh, who heard the case, confirmed that while cryptocurrencies are intangible and not traditional legal tender, they possess characteristics akin to property.
“The term ‘cryptocurrency’ might not refer to tangible property, nor is it a currency in the conventional sense,” the Court stated. “However, it is a form of property capable of being owned, enjoyed, and even held in trust.”
The case involved an investor, who in January 2024, had invested nearly ₹2 lakh in XRP (a type of cryptocurrency) through the WazirX exchange platform operated by Zanmai Labs. After a significant cyberattack in July 2024, WazirX froze all user accounts, including the applicant’s, citing security concerns. The applicant’s XRP holdings were unaffected by the breach, but WazirX’s restructuring process, which applied to Ethereum tokens lost in the attack, led the investor to seek legal protection to prevent the redistribution of her assets.
READ: Gujarat High Court Rules NCLT President Has No Power to Shift Cases Across Benches
Court’s Analysis of Cryptocurrency as Property
Justice Venkatesh’s 54-page judgment carefully analyzed whether cryptocurrencies meet the established criteria for property under Indian law. Drawing on various legal precedents, including international rulings, the Court held that digital tokens are definable, identifiable, and transferable, thus making them property capable of exclusive control.
Referring to prior judgments, such as the Ahmed GH Ariff v. CWT and Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, the Court reaffirmed that Indian jurisprudence defines property as any valuable right or interest. It also cited international cases from New Zealand and the UK that had similarly recognized cryptocurrencies as property.
Importantly, the Court referred to Section 2(47A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which classifies cryptocurrencies as “virtual digital assets,” reinforcing the view that cryptocurrencies are treated as property, not speculative assets, in the Indian legal framework.
READ: Jharkhand High Court Registers Contempt Case After Lawyer’s Heated Exchange with Judge Goes Viral
Jurisdiction of Indian Courts Over Cryptocurrency Disputes
The respondents, Zanmai Labs and its directors, argued that the Madras High Court lacked jurisdiction as the restructuring proceedings were underway in Singapore. However, the Court rejected this objection. It held that since part of the transaction occurred within India—through the transfer of funds from a domestic bank account—the case had a sufficient nexus with India.
The Court also noted that Zanmai Labs is registered as a reporting entity with the Indian Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), while its parent company, Zettai Pte Ltd, and former partner Binance were not registered in India. This distinction further supported the Court’s jurisdiction over the case.
READ: Law Minister Calls for Reconsideration of Section 34 of Arbitration Act to Address Pendency of Cases
Injunction Granted to Protect Investor’s Cryptocurrency
On the merits of the case, Justice Venkatesh ruled that the applicant’s XRP holdings were unaffected by the cyberattack, which specifically targeted Ethereum-based tokens. The Court found that applying the Singapore-based restructuring plan, which sought to redistribute losses, to assets unrelated to the hack was unjustified.
In granting interim relief, the Court ordered an injunction preventing Zanmai Labs from reallocating the applicant’s XRP holdings until the dispute was resolved through arbitration. This ruling is seen as a critical step in ensuring that cryptocurrency investors are protected from unfounded loss or redistribution of their assets during restructuring or insolvency proceedings.
The decision also makes clear that cryptocurrency, although digital, is regarded as property under Indian law, with the potential to be held in trust or subject to legal protection.
The ruling by the Madras High Court establishes an important precedent for how cryptocurrencies should be treated under Indian law, offering clarity for investors. It also marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal discourse around digital assets, underlining the increasing recognition of cryptocurrency as a legitimate form of property capable of legal ownership.
This case is closely watched as a step toward shaping future legal frameworks for digital currencies in India.
READ: Supreme Court Directs Government to Fill NCLT-NCLAT Vacancies ‘On War Footing’
