‘Weaponising insolvency frameworks’: WinZO slams Paytm’s ₹3.6 cr plea as pressure tactic

Online gaming platform WinZO has hit back at Paytm’s parent One97 Communications after the fintech firm moved the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) seeking to initiate insolvency proceedings over an alleged non-payment of ₹3.6 crore for advertising services.

Calling the move a “pressure tactic,” WinZO said it was “unfortunate” that Paytm had escalated what it described as a “routine commercial settlement” into an insolvency case.

“It is unfortunate that, after an eight-year partnership, Paytm has escalated a routine commercial settlement into an insolvency proceeding as a pressure tactic,” the company said in a statement to Storyboard18. “Such matters should be resolved through dialogue and due process, not by weaponising insolvency frameworks.”

The company maintained that the invoices in question were never approved and that an internal audit had found material discrepancies in Paytm’s claims and compliance records. “WinZO remains fully compliant and committed to honouring all legitimate obligations,” it added.

The case was heard by an NCLT Bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Jyotsna Sharma and Technical Member Anu Jagmohan Singh, which granted WinZO two weeks to file its reply. The next hearing is scheduled for December 15.

Representing Paytm, Senior Advocate Krishnendu Datta told the tribunal that WinZO had defaulted on four invoices raised for promoting its real-money gaming products on the Paytm app. The invoices, issued under separate purchase orders, carried a 60-day payment term, with a demand notice served on October 1, 2025.

Datta argued that WinZO had not raised any dispute over the advertisements, asserting that “there is no communication or email where they say advertisements were not placed.” He further said that Paytm had shared AppFlyer validation data as required under the contract, thereby fulfilling its obligations.

WinZO’s counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Malhotra, denied the liability and cited Clause 14 of the purchase order, which required invoice validation via email before payment became due. He submitted that the invoices were still “under validation” and had been forwarded to the company’s central team for review — making payment premature.

Paytm countered this as a “sham defence,” claiming WinZO was using procedural pretexts to delay payment. Datta also alleged that the default coincided with the government’s ban on real-money gaming, suggesting the company’s financial stress could be behind the delay.

After preliminary submissions, the tribunal issued notice to WinZO and directed it to file a detailed response before the next hearing.