SEBI v. Parthiv Dalal and Shruti Vora (WhatsApp circulation of ITC results, 2022)
Dismissed
Checked against the primary document on October 8, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, in a single reading of the order; an independent second reading of 60 SEBI records agreed on every field for 56, the four misses being penalty amounts; a later sample of 50 of the SEBI records added on 9 October agreed on every field for 46. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.
On 31 October 2022 a SEBI adjudicating officer closed a proceeding against Parthiv Dalal and Shruti Vora over a WhatsApp message carrying ITC quarterly figures that matched the results announced later that day. No penalty was imposed because higher courts had already rejected SEBI's case on materially identical WhatsApp facts.
The record
| Agency | SEBI (India) |
|---|---|
| Date filed | 2022-10-31 |
| Date resolved | 2022-10-31 |
| Court | SEBI adjudicating officer |
| Status | dismissed |
| Asset class | equities |
| Instruments | ITC Ltd shares |
| Venue | BSE, NSE |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Defendants | Parthiv Dalal ; Shruti Vora |
| Techniques | Insider trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
SEBI examined WhatsApp chats seized from members of a group of market contacts after press reports in November 2017 of price sensitive information circulating in private chat groups. This order concerns ITC Ltd and the period 1 to 26 October 2016. The noticees were Parthiv Dalal and Shruti Vora.
SEBI alleged that on 26 October 2016, shortly before ITC announced its results to the exchanges at about 1.52 pm, a message listing ITC revenue from operations, profit before and after tax and other figures reached Ms Vora's phone and was forwarded by her to other contacts. The order records that the circulated numbers differed from the announced ones by between zero and about 2.6 percent, which SEBI took as showing the message was unpublished price sensitive information. It charged both noticees with breach of section 12A(d) and (e) of the SEBI Act and Regulation 3(1) of the insider trading regulations, 2015.
The officer did not decide whether the message was price sensitive or came from an insider. The order instead relies on the Securities Appellate Tribunal's ruling of 22 March 2021 in a closely similar WhatsApp matter, which set aside SEBI's findings, and on the Supreme Court's refusal on 26 September 2022 to interfere, and records that the facts are a replica apart from the company.
The notice was disposed of without any consideration of the merits, and no penalty or other direction was imposed.
The record does not show whether anyone traded on the message, what the source was, or whether SEBI took any further step.
This library tags the matter as insider trading (alleged communication of unpublished price sensitive information). The tagging is ours, not the regulator's.
For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the order.
What technique is this, and how does it work?
This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.
- Insider trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2022-10-31 SEBI order
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Trijya Vakil and Neeraj Visen (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-09-04 | Insider Trading | $109k | settled |
| CFTC v. Gabriel Perez (insider trading, 2026) | CFTC | 2026-08-28 | Insider Trading | $65k | judgment |
| SEC v. Gavin Wolfe and others (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-21 | Insider Trading | — | filed |
| SEC v. Jesse R. Mitchell (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-21 | Insider Trading | — | filed |
| SEBI v. Arun Kumar Somani and others (insider trading review, Indian Oil Corporation, 2026) | SEBI (India) | 2026-08-13 | Insider Trading | — | dismissed |
| SEC v. Benjamin Tesfaye (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-11 | Insider Trading | $18.7k | settled |