<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (4) TMI 1326 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459641</link>
    <description>SEBI&#039;s statutory powers under the SEBI Act were interpreted broadly to include calling for relevant information in a securities investigation, including call data records and tower location details held by telecom service providers. Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act was confined to interception or detention of messages and was not a bar to seeking static call records. Because the power could affect privacy, it was limited to persons under investigation or inquiry, had to be exercised by duly authorised officers, required recorded reasons showing application of mind, and could not be used for a fishing enquiry. SEBI was therefore entitled to seek such records subject to these safeguards.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2024 19:51:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 1326 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459641</link>
      <description>SEBI&#039;s statutory powers under the SEBI Act were interpreted broadly to include calling for relevant information in a securities investigation, including call data records and tower location details held by telecom service providers. Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act was confined to interception or detention of messages and was not a bar to seeking static call records. Because the power could affect privacy, it was limited to persons under investigation or inquiry, had to be exercised by duly authorised officers, required recorded reasons showing application of mind, and could not be used for a fishing enquiry. SEBI was therefore entitled to seek such records subject to these safeguards.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459641</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>