- Bombay High Court rules for CoinSwitch in WazirX case, setting crypto liability precedent
- Indian High Court dismisses Zanmai Labs’ appeal and affirms crypto asset security standards
- CoinSwitch ruling marks first major court decision on digital asset custody in India
The Bombay High Court has granted CoinSwitch the right to secure assets stolen during the $234 million hack of the WazirX platform in July 2024.
The court dismissed an appeal from Zanmai Labs, which operates WazirX, challenging an arbitration order that directed the company to provide bank guarantees to secure claims arising from the cyberattack.
The court held that the tribunal acted within its authority and that securing CoinSwitch’s claim was legally appropriate given the scale of the breach.
How the Dispute Began
Hackers had breached WazirX’s multi-signature wallets in July 2024, stealing ERC-20 tokens valued at $234 million. CoinSwitch, which maintained broker accounts on WazirX, lost a significant portion of its funds in the attack.
Soon after, CoinSwitch and affiliate Nextgendev Solutions approached an arbitration panel seeking security for the stolen assets. The tribunal issued orders in December 2024 and March 2025 instructing Zanmai Labs, the operator of WazirX, to deposit bank guarantees totaling ₹45.38 crore in favor of CoinSwitch.
Related: WazirX Hack Explained: What Happened & What’s Next
Zanmai’s Defense and Court’s Response
Zanmai Labs argued that the hack was beyond its control and blamed Binance, which had previously managed WazirX’s infrastructure, for cybersecurity failures.
Related: WazirX Files Legal Submission in Line With Singaporean High Court’s Instruction
The court rejected that claim, stating that the Broker Agreement between CoinSwitch and Zanmai carried clear operational obligations that could not be shifted to a third party.
The Court’s Rationale and Legal Implications
Justice Sundaresan held that “the arbitral tribunal interpreted the contract reasonably and acted within its mandate,” therefore Zanmai’s challenge lacked merit.
The ruling also addressed Zanmai’s assertion that the Broker Agreement with CoinSwitch was only a tax-related arrangement, rejecting this claim and affirming that the agreement had major legal implications regarding operational responsibilities.
Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.
