Paytm Files Insolvency Plea Against WinZO Over ₹3.6 Crore Dues, NCLT Issues Notice

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Tuesday issued a notice to gaming platform WinZO in response to an insolvency plea filed by fintech platform Paytm, which has alleged non-payment of around ₹3.6 crore for advertising services.

The case was heard by a Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Jyotsna Sharma and Technical Member Anu Jagmohan Singh. WinZO has been given two weeks to submit its reply, with the next hearing scheduled for December 15.

The petition, filed by Paytm’s parent company One97 Communications, alleges that WinZO failed to clear dues for advertising its gaming products, including poker and rummy, on the Paytm app.

The Petition

Senior Advocate Krishnendu Datta, representing Paytm, stated that the debt arose from four invoices issued under purchase orders from WinZO, each carrying a 60-day payment term. Despite a demand notice sent on October 1, 2025, no payment was made.

Paytm argued that WinZO did not dispute the delivery of advertising services but instead claimed the invoices had “not been validated” and were under internal investigation, a stance Paytm described as a “sham defence.”

Datta further noted that WinZO never raised any communication questioning the placement of advertisements, adding, “There is no communication or email where they say advertisements were not placed.” Paytm also submitted validation data from the AppFlyer tool to show that all contractual specifications had been met.

Winzo’s Defence

WinZO cited Clause 14 of the purchase order, which requires email validation before invoices can be raised, as its defence. Senior Advocate Abhishek Malhotra, representing WinZO, pointed to internal emails showing that the invoices in question had not been validated and were transferred to a central team for evaluation.

Paytm, however, argued that WinZO could not indefinitely delay the validation process and that courts generally imply reasonable timelines where contracts are silent. Paytm’s representative Datta also noted that previous invoices had been cleared without any dispute and that the default began only recently. He contended that WinZO’s non-payment coincided with the enforcement of the online real-money gaming ban, suggesting that the company was unable to pay its dues because of the regulatory restrictions.

After hearing both sides, the tribunal allowed WinZO to present its defence in its counter statement, issued a formal notice, and adjourned the matter to December 15 for further proceedings. Datta was briefed by advocates Ajay Kumar, Stuti Vatsa, Abhay Kumar Yadav, Vijayant Goel, and Aditi Tripathi, while Malhotra was assisted by advocate Srishti Gupta from Dugal Grewal & Partners.