Pranav B Prem

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench, on Tuesday issued a notice to WinZO Games following an insolvency petition filed by One97 Communications Ltd (Paytm), alleging non-payment of approximately ₹3.6 crore for advertising services rendered to the gaming company. The matter was taken up by Justice Jyotsna Sharma (Judicial Member) and Anu Jagmohan Singh (Technical Member), who granted WinZO two weeks’ time to submit its reply. The case is scheduled for further hearing on December 15.

Also Read: NCLAT New Delhi: Written Acknowledgment And Part Payments Under Section 9 Of IBC Extend Limitation Period Under Section 19 Of Limitation Act

According to the petition filed by Paytm, the dues pertain to four invoices raised during June and July 2025, relating to advertisements run on the Paytm app to promote WinZO’s online games, including poker and rummy. The company stated that, under the purchase orders, the payment was to be made within 60 days, and that all ad campaigns had been executed as per agreement. While previous invoices for similar campaigns had been cleared without issue, Paytm claimed that WinZO stopped making payments for the later campaigns without any valid justification. Paytm further stated that a demand notice was issued on October 1, 2025, seeking payment, but no satisfactory response was received.

Representing WinZO, Senior Advocate Abhishek Malhotra did not dispute that the advertisements were published but contended that the invoices had not been “validated” under the company’s internal procedures. He explained that WinZO relied on a tracking software, AppFlyer, to verify whether the ads had actually been displayed, and that the verification process was still pending with the accounts and legal departments.

Conversely, Senior Advocate Krishnendu Datta, appearing for Paytm, argued that the “validation” claim was merely a tactic to delay payment. He emphasized that WinZO had not raised any objections when the ads were displayed and had previously paid invoices under the same procedure. Paytm also placed on record email correspondences indicating that at least one of the disputed invoices had already been validated by WinZO itself.

Also Read: NCLAT: EPFO Claims Based On Post-CIRP Inspection And Assessment Orders Are Unenforceable

After hearing both parties, the Tribunal directed WinZO to file a written response along with supporting documents. It further observed that since the contract did not specify any definite timeline for the validation process, such verification must be completed within a “reasonable period.” The matter will be taken up for further consideration on the next date of hearing.

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

Case No: IB-576/ND/2025

Coram: Justice Jyotsna Sharma (Judicial Member),Anu Jagmohan Singh (Technical Member)