Paytm Moves NCLT Delhi Against WinZO Games Over ₹3.6 Crore Unpaid Advertising Dues

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Delhi on Tuesday issued notice to WinZO Games after Paytm (One97 Communications Ltd) filed an insolvency plea claiming that the gaming company failed to pay around Rs 3.6 crore for advertising services.

Judicial Member Justice Jyotsna Sharma and Technical Member Anu Jagmohan Singh heard the matter briefly and gave WinZO two weeks to file its reply. The matter is listed again on December 15.

According to Paytm, the unpaid amount relates to four invoices raised in June and July 2025 for advertisements placed by WinZO on the Paytm app to promote its online games like poker and rummy. Paytm said that as per the purchase orders, the agreed payment period was 60 days. The company claimed that all the advertisements were displayed as agreed and that WinZO had paid earlier bills for similar campaigns, but later stopped making payments for reasons that, Paytm argued, were not genuine.

Paytm also sent a demand notice to WinZO on October 1, 2025, asking for payment, but said it received no valid response.

WinZO, represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Malhotra, did not deny that the ads were published. However, it argued that the invoices could not be paid because they had not yet been “validated” as per the terms of the purchase orders. The company said that this validation was part of an internal process involving a tracking software called AppFlyer, which was used to confirm whether the ads had actually run. WinZO told the tribunal that the invoices were still being checked by its internal accounts and legal teams.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Krishnendu Datta, appearing for Paytm, said that WinZO's explanation was just an excuse to delay payment. He pointed out that WinZO had not raised any complaint about the advertisements at the time they were shown, and that earlier invoices under the same system had been paid without any issue. Paytm also showed emails suggesting that at least one of the invoices had already been validated by WinZO itself.

The tribunal noted the arguments and asked WinZO to file its written response with all supporting documents. The tribunal also said that since the contract did not specify how long the validation process could take, it would have to be done within a “reasonable period.”

Case Title: One 97 Communications Limited vs. Winzo Private Limited  

Case Number: IB-576/ND/2025