SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, J. ( 1 ) BY consent of parties we have heard the appeal on the basis of papers included in the petition by hearing the same in the day's list. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order admitting the winding up petition. We have considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the parties. ( 3 ) MR. Sanjib Banerjee, learned advocate for the appellant, has contended that the statutory notice was not properly served and as such, the winding up petition is not maintainable. Secondly, he has contended that affidavit evidence is not sufficient. Lastly, he has submitted that there is no basis for fixing the quantum of interest as made by the learned judge. ( 4 ) SO far as the first submission of Mr. Banerjee is concerned, it appears that the letter is dated March 2, 1996. In fact, although the petitioner has made such submission, he has not mentioned when he received the letter of statutory notice. Since there is no denial of the receipt of the letter and what is denied is the contents, of the letter in the affidavit-in-opposition filed before the learned single judge and the winding up petition was affirmed in July, 1996, it cannot be said that the winding up petition was not served and there is non-compliance with Section 434 of the Companies Act, 1956. In that view of the matter, the first ground of submission of Mr. Sanjib Banerjee fails. There is no dispute that all the demand drafts on the basis of which claim has been made have been duly received by the company and encashed. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid, we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Banerjee that the affidavit evidence is not sufficient. The only other ground remains in respect of the quantum of interest. The learned judge has not specified any reasoning on the basis of which he has fixed the quantum of interest at the rate of 18 per cent. No agreement could be shown to us regarding the interest. In that view of the matter, it is the submission of the parties that the Interest Act will apply. ( 6 ) MR. Sanjib Banerjee has submitted that in terms of the Interest Act, 1978, the current rate of interest as defined in Section 2 (b) should be applicable. No agreement could be shown to us regarding the interest. In that view of the matter, it is the submission of the parties that the Interest Act will apply. ( 6 ) MR. Sanjib Banerjee has submitted that in terms of the Interest Act, 1978, the current rate of interest as defined in Section 2 (b) should be applicable. Section 2 (b) of the Interest Act, 1978, provides as follows :"2. (b) 'current rate of interest' means the highest of the maximum rates at which interest may be paid on different classes of deposits (other than those maintained in savings account or those maintained by charitable or religious institutions) by different classes of scheduled banks in accordance with the directions given or issued to banking companies generally by the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. " ( 7 ) FROM the aforesaid section, it is clear that interest should be in such cases on deposit in the bank other than savings bank. ( 8 ) IT appears that four demand drafts were issued on May 26, 1994, May 28, 1994, June 9, 1994, and June 9, 1994, and, the letter of demand for payment of interest in respect of all these four demand drafts was made on September 12, 1994. So, the interest should be on the basis of fixed deposit rate for the aforesaid period taking into account the date of demand drafts and the date when demand has been made in terms of the Interest Act. From the date of demand, interest will be calculated at the rate of 9 per cent, per annum. ( 9 ) THE order of the learned judge with regard to quantum of interest stands modified to the extent indicated above. ( 10 ) THE appellant has not complied with the conditions for stay as granted by an interim order passed by the Division Bench on February 1, 1999. ( 11 ) IN that view of the matter, the winding up petition also stands admitted for non-compliance with the conditional order of stay. ( 12 ) IT will be open to the respondent/petitioning creditor to advertise once in The Statesman and once in Bartaman and publication in the Calcutta Gazette stands dispensed with, as directed by the learned single judge. ( 12 ) IT will be open to the respondent/petitioning creditor to advertise once in The Statesman and once in Bartaman and publication in the Calcutta Gazette stands dispensed with, as directed by the learned single judge. ( 13 ) THE appeal is allowed only to the limited extent as to the quantum of interest and with regard to the other question, it stands dismissed.