Skip to main content

Banks can't fix 60% marks as cutoff for study loans: Madras HC

The bank filed an appeal saying candidates who have secured 60% marks and above alone are eligible to get education loan, as they alone can be treated as meritorious candidates.

The bench, rejecting the submissions, said: "The government of India launched the scheme of providing education loans to economically disadvantaged people through nationalised banks. Sanction of educational loan is not free but is repayable with interest at a later point of time, of course, at a reduced rate of interest. The whole idea behind the scheme is to finance the economically disadvantaged people in their educational career. It is a social commitment for the upliftment of weaker, vulnerable and other sections of the society. It is a social welfare measure. In a way, it is some sort of social banking."

The judges said public sector banks and other financial institutions must bear the government's policy in mind while sanctioning educational loans to cover the genuine, reasonable and justified educational expenses and relieve the students and their parents from pressing financial crisis.

In this regard, the judges also pointed out that a review meeting of top bankers decided on September 27, 2013 that they would extend loans to meritorious students who get admission under management quota. It was also decided that loan applications have to be disposed of within a period of 15 days to one month.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Banks-cant-fix-60-marks-as-cutoff-for-study-loans-Madras-HC/articleshow/38098371.cms

Comments

  1. Anuj Sharma4 June 2020 at 19:06


    Awesome work ! I am planning to get an education loan but I was confused about the best deals available for me , your post gave me an amazing idea to explore for study loans australia . Nice post, keep posting.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nikki Singh5 June 2020 at 17:29

    This information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing this information on Education Loan. For Study loan, visit here:
    Education Loan For Study In India

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more