K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) AT the stage of admission respondents are served. Respondent No. 2-contesting respondent is also represented through a counsel. As the appeal can be disposed of on a short point even at the admission stage, it is admitted and taken up for final hearing itself. ( 2 ) THE only point that arises for consideration is : whether the trial Court is justified in law in not awarding interest on the suit amount for the period from 28-10-1984 to 8-10-1985. ( 3 ) FACTS necessary for the purpose of deciding this question are no more in dispute. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff-appellant advanced in all a sum of Rs. 55,000/-, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the defendants under the receipts produced as per Exts. P-1 to P-3. The trial Court refused to award interest for the aforesaid period even though the plaintiff-appellant claimed interest as per registered notice Ext. P-4 on the ground that Exts. P-1 to P-3 did not provide for payment of interest. In other words, according to the learned trial Judge there was no agreement between the parties regarding payment of interest. It is true and it is also not disputed before us that there was no agreement between the parties regarding interest payable on the amount of Rs. 55,000. However, the plaintiff-appellant issued a registered notice as per Ext. P-4 dated 23-10-1984 which was served upon the first defendant-1st respondent on 28-10-1984 demanding payment of money advanced and also interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date the money was advanced as per Exs. P-1 to P-3. Therefore, it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff at least was entitled to interest from 28-10-1984 at the current rate as per the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Interest Act. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent that the provisions of Section 3 of the Interest Act are not attracted to the case inasmuch as Exts. P1 to P-3 are mere receipts evidencing the receipt of the money by the 2nd respondent from the appellant-plaintiff, and they do not contain any recital as to when the amount has to be paid. Therefore, the very requirement of Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 is not satisfied. P1 to P-3 are mere receipts evidencing the receipt of the money by the 2nd respondent from the appellant-plaintiff, and they do not contain any recital as to when the amount has to be paid. Therefore, the very requirement of Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 is not satisfied. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Thawardas Pherumal v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 468 . ( 6 ) SECTION 3 (1) of the Interest Act, 1978 reads thus :"in any proceedings for the recovery of any debt or damages or in any proceedings in which a claim for interest in respect of any debt or damages already paid is made, the Court may, if it thinks fit, allow interest to the person entitled to the debt or damages or to the person making such claim, as the case may be, at a rate not exceeding the current rate of interest, for the whole or part of the following period, this to say, - (a) if the proceedings relate to a debt payable by virtue of a written instrument at a certain time, then, from the date when the debt is payable to the date of institution of the proceedings; (b) if the proceedings do not relate to any such debt, then, from the date mentioned in this regard in a written notice given by the person entitled or the person making the claim to the person liable that interest will be claimed, to the date of institution of the proceedings : provided that where the amount of the debt or damages has been repaid before the institution of the proceedings, interest shall not be allowed under this Section for the period after such payment. "in order to attract Section 3 (1) of the Interest Act, it is sufficient for the plaintiff if he either satisfies clause (a) or clause (b) of Section 3 (1) of the Interest Act. Both the clauses are not required to be satisfied. If clause (a) is satisfied, he would be entitled to interest from the date the debt became payable. If clause (b) is satisfied, then the interest becomes payable from the date the written notice is served claiming or demanding interest. 6. 1. The Thawardas Pherumal's case related to an arbitration matter wherein the damages were claimed. If clause (a) is satisfied, he would be entitled to interest from the date the debt became payable. If clause (b) is satisfied, then the interest becomes payable from the date the written notice is served claiming or demanding interest. 6. 1. The Thawardas Pherumal's case related to an arbitration matter wherein the damages were claimed. One of the claims was about the interest on the amount of damages. The Supreme Court held that it was not permissible to allow interest prior to the date of the suit on an unliquidated sum. It was also held that the arbitrator was not a 'court' within the meaning of the Interest Act. In addition to this, it was further held that the following among other conditions must be fulfilled before interest could be awarded under the Interest Act : 1) There must be a debt or a sum certain; 2) It must be payable at a certain time or otherwise; 3) These debts or sums must be payable by virtue of some written contract at a certain time; 4) There must have been a demand in writing stating that the interest will be charged or claimed from the date of the demand. The aforesaid decision was considered in Ct. A. Ct. Nachiappa Chettiar v. Ct. A. Ct. Subramaniam Chettiar, AIR 1960 SC 307 , and it was held as follows : "44. That leaves only one point to be considered. It is urged by the appellants that the arbitrators acted illegally and without jurisdiction in directing the appellants to pay to the respondent Rs. 2,682-6-0 by way of interest on the "amounts specified in the award up to 5/12/1944, and from the date at the rate of 5 as per cent per mensem, thus imposing on the appellants a total liability of Rs. 2,36,782-11-9. The appellants have also been directed to pay future interest on the same amount at 8 as. per cent, per mensem from the said date until the date of payment. This argument is based solely on the observations made by Bose, J. who delivered the judgement of this Court in Thawardas Pherumal v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 468 . It appears that in the case the claim for an unliquidated sum to which Interest Act of 1839 applied as interest was otherwise not payable by law in that kind of case. It appears that in the case the claim for an unliquidated sum to which Interest Act of 1839 applied as interest was otherwise not payable by law in that kind of case. Dealing with the contention that the arbitrators could not have awarded interest in such a case Bose, J. set out four conditions which must be satisfied before interest can be awarded under the Interest Act and observed that none of them was present in the case; and so he concluded that the arbitrator had no power to allow interest simply because he thought that the payment was reasonable. " again in The Union of India v. West Punjab Factories Ltd. , AIR 1966 SC 395 in relation to Thawardas Pherumal's case, it was observed thus : "16. The next contention is that no interest could be awarded for the period before the suit on the amount of damages decreed. Legal position with respect to this is well-settled. That decision of the Judicial Committee was relied upon by this Court in Thawardas Pherumal v. Union of India, 1955 (2) SCR 48. The same view was expressed by this Court in Union of India v. A. L. Rallia Ram, (1964) 3 SCR 164 : ( AIR 1963 SC 1685 ). In the absence of any usage or contract, express or implied or of any provision of law to justify the award of interest, it is not possible to award interest by way of damages. Also see recent decision of this Court in Union of India v. Watkins Mayor and Co. , Civil Appeals Nos. 43 and 44 of 1963 dated 10-3-1965 (reported in AIR 1966 SC 275 ). In view of these decisions, no interest could be awarded for the period up to the date of the suit and the decretal amount in the two suits will have to be reduced by the amount of such interest awarded. " therefore, it is clear that the aforesaid decisions do not lay down that in a case like the one on hand, interest cannot be awarded under the Interest Act. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, as per Ex. P. 4, the plaintiff has issued notice demanding interest. Ex. P. 4 was served upon the 2nd respondent on 28-10-1984. The suit was filed on 8-10-1985. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to interest for the period from 28-10-1984 to 8-10-1985. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, as per Ex. P. 4, the plaintiff has issued notice demanding interest. Ex. P. 4 was served upon the 2nd respondent on 28-10-1984. The suit was filed on 8-10-1985. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to interest for the period from 28-10-1984 to 8-10-1985. ( 8 ) THE next question for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at 18% per annum as claimed in Ext. P. 4. Under the Interest Act, the party is entitled to Interest at the "current rate of interest" which expression is defined in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Interest Act, as meaning, the highest of the maximum rates at which interest may be paid on different classes of deposits by different classes of schedule banks in accordance with the direction given or issued to the banking companies generally by the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Resolution Act, 1949. Therefore, taking into consideration the definition of the expression current rate of Interest" as contained in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Interest Act, we are of the view that the interest at the rate of 15% p. a. would be just and appropriate as that was the maximum rate of interest that was being paid on different classes of deposits during the period from 28-10-1984 to 8-10-1985. Accordingly we answer the point raised for determination as follows :the trial Court is not justified in refusing to award interest on the suit claim for the period from 28-10-1984 to 8-10-1985. It ought to have awarded interest on the suit claim for the aforesaid period at 15% per annum. ( 9 ) THE appeal is allowed in part. The judgement and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 55,000/- are confirmed. However, in respect of the interest awarded by it, the judgement and decree of the trial court are modified as follows : ( 10 ) THE plaintiff is entitled to interest at 15% per annum on the sum of Rs. 55,000/- from 28-10-1984 to 8-10-1985. ( 11 ) THE suit claim as decreed now shall bear interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. ( 12 ) IN this appeal we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .