Paytm has filed an insolvency plea against online gaming platform WinZO before the NCLT, alleging non-payment of Rs 3.6 crore for ad services. WinZO claims the invoices were “not validated,” while Paytm calls it a “sham defence.”
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Tuesday issued a notice on Paytm’s insolvency petition filed against the online gaming platform WinZO. The case was filed by Paytm’s parent company, One97 Communications, claiming that WinZO failed to pay about Rs 3.6 crore for advertising services provided to it.
The matter came up before a Bench of Judicial Member Justice Jyotsna Sharma and Technical Member Anu Jagmohan Singh. The Tribunal granted two weeks’ time to WinZO to file its reply and listed the matter for further hearing on December 15.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | BJP Govt’s Online Gaming Bill Becomes Law: Gets President’s Assent
Appearing on behalf of Paytm, Senior Advocate Krishnendu Datta argued that the unpaid operational debt arose from four invoices that were raised under purchase orders issued by WinZO for promoting its gaming products — including poker and rummy — on Paytm’s application.
Datta told the Bench that all the invoices carried 60-day payment terms and were sent to WinZO through email. However, despite a demand notice dated October 1, 2025, the company failed to clear the dues.
Paytm’s counsel pointed out that WinZO had not denied receiving the advertising services. Instead, the gaming company claimed that the invoices were “not validated” and were under internal review.
Calling this argument false and baseless, Paytm described WinZO’s stand as a “sham defence”.
Datta further submitted before the Tribunal that WinZO never raised any objection or complaint regarding the placement of advertisements.
He said,
“There is no communication or email where they say advertisements were not placed,”
He also informed the Bench that Paytm had shared validation data from the AppFlyer tool, proving that the advertising services were delivered as per the terms of the contract.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Abhishek Malhotra, appearing for WinZO, argued that according to Clause 14 of the purchase order, invoices could only be raised after WinZO’s email validation.
He also referred to internal company emails to show that the invoices had not yet been validated and were sent to a central team for evaluation.
Responding to this, Paytm contended that WinZO could not keep delaying the validation process forever and that
“courts imply reasonable timelines where contracts are silent.”
Datta further argued that WinZO had regularly cleared earlier invoices without any issue, but the default started only recently.
He claimed that the delay in payments began after the ban on online real money gaming came into effect, suggesting that WinZO might be facing financial difficulties due to the ban.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal observed that WinZO could present its defence formally in its counter statement. The NCLT then issued a notice to WinZO and adjourned the matter to December 15 for further consideration.
Datta was assisted by advocates Ajay Kumar, Stuti Vatsa, Abhay Kumar Yadav, Vijayant Goel, and Aditi Tripathi.
Malhotra appeared along with a team from TMT Law Practice.
