Why the Madras HC’s ruling on Cryptocurrency as ‘Property’ sets a critical precedent
The Madras HC’s October 2025 ruling on whether cryptocurrency is ‘property’ under Indian law clarified many questions, but it also revealed that crypto regulation still depends on ad-hoc judicial interpretation.
Harsh Gour
Published on: 18 February 2026, 01:34 pm
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.
Could an Indian court even intervene when a foreign court’s scheme loomed? Were Rhutikumari’s XRP holdings her property?
What is a cryptocurrency, legally speaking?
At the heart of the case lay an issue: what is a cryptocurrency, legally speaking? The High Court noted that tokens like XRP are neither currency nor a physical asset. It noted that they exist purely as data on a blockchain. Yet, they carry market value and have an economic role, which makes them something more than mere information.
The High Court cited global precedents, and it observed that jurisdictions across the globe are increasingly treating crypto as property. For example, it cited foreign rulings – a UK court held that Bitcoin could be property capable of being owned, and the New Zealand High Court concluded that cryptocurrencies are a type of property that can be held in trust.
But what counts as property in Indian law? The Supreme Court of India has long defined “property” in the broadest terms - everything one can hold or enjoy. In Ahmed G.H. Ariff v. CWT (1969), the Supreme Court noted that property is “of the widest import” – essentially, “every possible interest” a person can hold. Relying on this logic, the Madras High Court reasoned that cryptocurrency, although not a legal tender, falls within this broad sweep. Justice Venkatesh noted that crypto is treated by law (for tax purposes) as a “virtual digital asset”, not a mere speculative bet. Once you invest rupees into a crypto exchange and receive tokens in return, those tokens can be stored, transferred and traded like any valuable asset. This satisfies the classic attributes of property.
