Bombay High Court Appoints Arbitrator In Suncrypto-WazirX Dispute Over $261,967 In Crypto Assets

The Bombay High Court on 16 October appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve a dispute between Angellic Info Tech Private Limited, operator of Suncrypto, and Zanmai Labs Private Limited, operator of WazirX, over the alleged inability to withdraw crypto assets worth USD 261,967.86729.

Justice Amit Borkar allowed Angellic Info Tech's petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and appointed Advocate Dormaan Dalal as the sole arbitrator. He held:

“In my view, only because the Broker Terms form part of the User Agreement, it does not mean that the provisions of the Broker Terms have no separate meaning or effect. The parties have provided how the two documents will operate when there is a conflict between them. This arrangement agreed by the parties has to be given proper effect.”

Angellic alleged that it could not withdraw virtual digital assets worth USD 261,967.86729 from its designated WazirX wallet on 18 July 2024. The assets remained unavailable despite correspondence and meetings between the parties.

It relied on Clause 10 of the Broker Terms, which provides for an amicable settlement within 30 days, followed by reference to a jointly appointed sole arbitrator. The clause also states that the Broker Terms would prevail over the User Agreement in case of a conflict. Angellic argued that the clause governed the dispute and provided for Mumbai as the seat of arbitration.

Zanmai opposed the petition, relying on the User Agreement dated 1 August 2023, which provides for arbitration under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre rules, with Singapore as the seat. It also argued that the disputed assets formed part of restructuring proceedings before the Singapore High Court and that a scheme dealt with on 13 October 2025 governed the parties' rights and claims concerning those assets.

The Court rejected Zanmai's contention that the User Agreement should prevail because it was the principal agreement or had been executed later. It held that both agreements could operate together, but the express clause giving priority to the Broker Terms had to be given effect wherever the provisions conflicted. It observed:

“Both documents can operate together wherever there is no conflict. But where the User Agreement provides for a foreign seat and the Broker Terms provide for arbitration under the Indian Act with exclusive jurisdiction of the courts at Mumbai, the express provision giving priority to the Broker Terms cannot be ignored.”

Further, the Bench held that the dispute over withdrawal of assets from Angellic's broker account fell within the scope of the Broker Terms. It concluded that Mumbai was the intended juridical seat of arbitration because the terms provided for arbitration under Indian law and conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Mumbai courts.

It also rejected Zanmai's objection based on the Singapore restructuring proceedings, finding that the material placed before it did not establish that the scheme had extinguished Angellic's claim or rendered the arbitration agreement inoperative.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and appointed Advocate Dormaan Dalal as the sole arbitrator.

For Applicant: Advocates Amey Abhay Sirsikar, Shivani Dugam and Raju Gupta

For Respondent: Advocates Vishakha Shelar and Rompal Kohli