WazirX Broker’s $261,967 Crypto Withdrawal Dispute Goes To Mumbai Arbitration As Bombay HC Gives Broker Terms Priority Over Singapore Clause

The Applicant, which used the Respondent’s WazirX platform through a broker account, alleged that from 18 July 2024 it could not withdraw virtual digital assets worth USD 261,967.86729.

It sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on Clause 10 of the Broker Terms, which provides for arbitration under the Indian Act and exclusive jurisdiction of the Mumbai courts.

The Respondent relied on the User Agreement’s SIAC arbitration clause and Singapore seat, and also objected that the assets were subject to Singapore restructuring proceedings.

The Court considered whether the Broker Terms governed the dispute and whether it could appoint an arbitrator with Mumbai as the seat.

1. Whether the arbitration clause in the Broker Terms, rather than the conflicting arbitration provision in the User Agreement, applied to the Applicant’s broker-account dispute.

2. Whether Clause 10 of the Broker Terms, read with its reference to Indian law and exclusive jurisdiction of the Mumbai courts, established Mumbai as the seat of arbitration and permitted appointment under Section 11(6).

3. Whether the Singapore restructuring proceedings prevented the dispute from being referred to arbitration.

Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 empowers the Court to appoint an arbitrator where the agreed appointment procedure has not resulted in an appointment; under Section 11(6-A), the referral court’s inquiry is limited to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement.

In Shubham Equipment Private Limited v. Rothwell Water Company Limited, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 2089, the Supreme Court held that once such an agreement is prima facie established, the court should refer the parties to arbitration.

The Court also relied on M/s. Activitas Management Advisor Private Limited v. Mind Plus Healthcare Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 795, for the principle that an exclusive jurisdiction clause, read with an arbitration clause that specifies no seat, may indicate the juridical seat.

It considered Zanmai Labs Private Limited v. Bitcipher Labs LLP, 2025:BHC-OS:18329, as relevant to reading the User Agreement and Broker Agreement together and giving effect to their express priority provision.

The Broker Terms expressly formed part of the User Agreement but provided that they would prevail in the event of conflict.

Because the claim concerned assets held in and withdrawn from the Applicant’s broker account—activities covered by the Broker Terms—the Court found, prima facie, that Clause 10 applied.

The Singapore seat provision in the User Agreement conflicted with Clause 10’s Indian-law arbitration arrangement and Mumbai exclusive-jurisdiction clause; the priority provision therefore favoured Clause 10.

As that clause specified no separate seat, its terms read together indicated Mumbai as the juridical seat.

The Respondent’s reliance on Singapore restructuring proceedings did not establish, on the material before the Court, that the arbitration agreement had ceased to operate or that the claim was barred from arbitration; their effect was left for the tribunal to consider.

It allowed the Section 11(6) application and appointed Mr. Dormaan Dalal as sole arbitrator; the parties were to bear the tribunal’s fees and costs equally in the first instance, subject to the final award.

Questions concerning the parties’ substantive rights, the assets, the effect of any scheme, and the relief available were left open for the tribunal.