Online gaming ban effect? Paytm files insolvency plea against WinZO in NCLT over ₹3.6 crore dues

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Tuesday issued notice on Paytm’s insolvency petition against online gaming platform WinZO, after the fintech major alleged non-payment of about ₹3.6 crore due for advertising services [One97 Communications Vs Winzo].

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Jyotsna Sharma and Technical Member Anu Jagmohan Singh. WinZO was granted two weeks to file its reply and the case will be taken up next on December 15.

Appearing for Paytm, Senior Advocate Krishnendu Datta submitted that the operational debt arose out of four invoices raised under purchase orders issued by WinZO for promoting its gaming products, including poker and rummy, on Paytm’s application

Invoices carried 60-day payment terms and were e-mailed to WinZO. A demand notice dated October 1, 2025 was also served but the dues remained unpaid, it was pointed out.

Paytm further contended that WinZO did not dispute delivery of advertising services. Instead, WinZO claimed that the invoices had “not been validated” and were under internal investigation and therefore, payment was not due.

Paytm termed this a “sham defence”.

WinZO had not raised any communication questioning the placement of advertisements.

“There is no communication or email where they say advertisements were not placed,” Datta argued

Paytm also submitted that validation data from the AppFlyer tool was provided thus, fulfilling contractual specifications.

WinZO relied on Clause 14 of the purchase order which requires its email validation before invoices can be raised.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Malhotra, appearing for WinZO, highlighted internal emails stating that invoices had not been validated and had been transferred to a central team for evaluation.

Paytm countered that WinZO could not indefinitely delay validation and courts imply reasonable timelines where contracts are silent.

Datta submitted that earlier invoices were cleared without dispute and that the default began only recently. He argued that WinZO stopped paying only after the online real money gaming ban came into effect, indicating that the company was unable to pay its dues because of the gaming ban.

After some arguments, the tribunal opined that Winzo could take its defence in their counter statement.

Thus, it issued notice and adjourned the case to December 15 for further consideration.

Datta was briefed by advocates Ajay Kumar, Stuti Vatsa, Abhay Kumar Yadav, Vijayant Goel and Aditi Tripathi.

Malhotra was briefed by Advocate Srishti Gupta from Dugal Grewal & Partners.