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. 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. 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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.