JUDGMENT - DESHMUKH D.K., J.:---This suit has been filed in the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court for recovery of the price of the bunkers supplied to the defendant/vessel with interest. 2. The plaintiff is a company registered and incorporated in Cyprus. The plaintiff carries on trade of supply of bunkers. 3. The defendant is the vessel which flies a Panamanian Flag and is registered at a port other than one in India. At the relevant time the defendant vessel "Niizuru" was owned by M/s. Karander Maritime Inc. One M/s. Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd. were agents appointed by the owners of the defendant/vessel and were in charge of the operation of the defendant/vessel. The registered manager of the vessel at the relevant time were SAMAMA (M/s. Society Anoyme Monegasque D Administration Maritime et Aerienre). The Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd., the agent of the defendant/vessel on behalf of the vessel placed an order with one Maritime Brokers Ltd. of UK for supply of bunkers to the defendant/vessel. The Maritime Brokers of Hull transferred that order to South Pacific Energy Trading, who in their turn transferred the order to the WM Scollay Co. They in their turn transferred the order for supply of bunkers to Forsythe Internation (UK) Ltd., who transferred that order to the plaintiff namely M/s. Forsythe Trading Services Ltd. The plaintiff placed the order for supply of bunkers to the defendant/vessel to one M/s. Petro Trade Services. The bunkers were accordingly supplied by Petro Trade Services to the defendant/vessel at Piraeus. It appears that for supplying the bunkers to the defendant/vessel, M/s. Petro Trade Services purchased the same from M/s. Elda which is a refinery in Greece. There is no dispute between the parties that the bunkers were received by the defendant/vessel and necessary receipts were passed. The bunkers were supplied on 15-1-1996 and 16-1-1996. After effecting the supply M/s. Petro Trade demanded payment from the agent of the defendant/vessel namely M/s. Zodiac Maritime. According to the plaintiff, the agent of the defendant/vessel by fax dated 21-2-1996 admitted their liability to make the payment for bunkers, but stated that since number of intermediate parties were involved in the transaction, it was necessary to secure assurances from other parties that they had no claims in respect of the supply. In reply M/s. Petro Trade by their fax dated 23-2-1996 stated that only intermediate party they knew was Forsythe Trading Services Ltd./plaintiff. In reply M/s. Petro Trade by their fax dated 23-2-1996 stated that only intermediate party they knew was Forsythe Trading Services Ltd./plaintiff. They stated that as they had supplied the bunkers they are entitled to receive the payment. According to the plaintiffs, the Solicitor of the defendant/vessel by fax dated 1-3-1996 admitted their liability to make payment for the value of the bunkers, but stated that they had received a similar demand from the Maritime Brokers Ltd. Hull and therefore before making payment it was necessary for an agreement to be reached as to who was entitled for payment. It appears that there was some correspondence regarding making payment into escrow for providing for a guarantee. But ultimately, no payment was made, therefore Petro Trade, physical supplier, approached the plaintiff because it was the plaintiff who had ordered them to make the supply and therefore the plaintiff made payment to Petro Trade. Petro Trade in their turn passed necessary receipts and also assigned their rights to receive payment for the supply in favour of the plaintiff. As no payment was made the plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of the value of the bunkers with interest at the rate of 20% p.a. 4. The defendant/vessel, which was arrested by this Court, on security being provided, was released from arrest. 5. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant. The principal grievance of the defendant in the written statement is that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable, because there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the owner of the defendant/vessel. It is also claimed that the plaintiff has privity of contract in relation to supply of bunkers with M/s. Maritime Brokers Ltd. and that a litigation between them is pending in the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division, Commercial Court in London. The defendant also challenges the validity of the assignment by the physical supplier/Petro Trade in favour of the plaintiff. Parties, thereafter, filed documents on which they rely. Oral evidence has also been led on behalf of both the parties. 6. On the basis of the pleadings and the documents, this Court by order dated 21st March, 2001 framed following issues. ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that supply of necessaries constitutes a maritime lien? OR Whether supply of necessaries to a vessel constitutes a maritime lien? 2. Oral evidence has also been led on behalf of both the parties. 6. On the basis of the pleadings and the documents, this Court by order dated 21st March, 2001 framed following issues. ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that supply of necessaries constitutes a maritime lien? OR Whether supply of necessaries to a vessel constitutes a maritime lien? 2. Whether there was privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the vessel? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove a maritime lien can be assigned? 4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they had served notice of the assignment upon the defendants? 5. Whether the filing of the present suit operates as a notice to the defendant vessel of the assignment of the debt? 6. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the standard terms and conditions of M/s. Petro Trade are binding upon the defendants? 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to US $ 260,257.89? 8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest @ 20% per annum? 9. What orders and reliefs? 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for both sides. The parties have also filed their written submissions. From the oral arguments and the written submissions, it is clear that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Epoch Enterrepots v. M.V. Won Fu.)1, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 24 there was no debate before me that the claim of the plaintiff would not amount to maritime lien, but would merely be a maritime claim. In this view of the matter, therefore, really speaking issue No. 1 does not survive for consideration. 8. For the same reasons, it is not necessary to consider issue No. 3. 9. In view of the submissions made before me, in my opinion, now really speaking following points arise for consideration : (i) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable against the defendant/vessel for recovery of value of bunkers supplied by Petro Trade; (ii) If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, then whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 20% per annum as claimed by them or interest is to be awarded at a lower rate. 10. 10. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that because the agent of the defendant had placed order for supply of bunkers with Maritime Brokers Ltd. and it is pursuant to that order that the supply was made by Petro Trade. There may not be privity of contract between the owners of the defendant/vessel and the physical supplier and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff as assignee of the physical supplier may not be maintainable against the defendant/vessel. But as a result of correspondence between the parties, it can be said that the owner of the defendant vessel accepted their liability to make the payment of the value of the bunkers received by them from Petro Trade to the physical supplier. Their only anxiety was that in view of the claim made by Maritime Broker Ltd. they cannot make the payment to the physical supplier, as otherwise they would be required to make double payment for the same supply. The learned Counsel submits that from the material available on record it is clear that when claim was made by the Maritime Broker Ltd. for value of the bunkers, the owners of the defendant/vessel denied their liability to make the payment to Maritime Brokers Ltd., because claim was made by the physical supplier. In any case, in so far as the supply of bunkers made to the defendant/vessel is concerned, claims were made by two parties, one by Maritime Brokers Ltd. and other by the plaintiff. The defendant has not been able to establish that they have made payment to Maritime Broker. Therefore, as the defendant does not deny its liability to make the payment of the value of the bunkers, the defendant cannot deny that now it has to make payment of the value of the bunkers to the plaintiff. Because, now the plaintiff is the only party which is making claim for the value of the bunkers. The learned Counsel submits that the plaintiff is willing to give an undertaking to the Court to indemnify the defendant/vessel against any claim made by any party in relation to the supply of bunkers in question. The learned Counsel submits that as the bunkers have been admittedly received by the defendant/vessel it cannot deny its liability to make payment for the same. The learned Counsel submits that as the bunkers have been admittedly received by the defendant/vessel it cannot deny its liability to make payment for the same. The defendant has not been able to show that it has made payment for the supply to any party and therefore, if the suit of the plaintiff is held to be not maintainable against the defendant, the defendant would receive the supply of bunkers without being required to make payment for the same to anybody. It is submitted that so far as the claim made by Maritime Brokers is concerned, that claim has been abandoned by Maritime Brokers. That claim was abandoned by the Maritime Brokers in the out of Courts settlement reached between them and the owners of the defendant vessel. The owners of the defendant/vessel have not been able to place the terms of the settlement before this Court. They avoided placing all those terms before this Court on the plea that the terms are confidential. The learned Counsel submits that an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the defendant/vessel. It is further submitted that in any case, even if it is assumed that there is no contract between the plaintiff and the owners of the defendant/vessel for supply of bunkers in view of the provisions of section 70 of the Contract Act the defendant/vessel cannot escape its liability for making payments for the bunkers that have been admittedly received by the defendant/vessel. It is also submitted that the Petro Trade made the supply of bunkers to the defendant/vessel because order for that was placed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has established that it has paid the physical supplier namely Petro Trade and therefore now it is the plaintiff which is entitled to recover the value of the bunkers by making payment to the physical supplier, the plaintiff has stepped into the shoes of the physical supplier and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to receive the payment. 11. It is also submitted that under the Indian Law no specific notice of assignment of debt is necessary and therefore the assignment made by the physical supplier in favour of the plaintiff is valid and therefore the suit filed by the plaintiff is also maintainable. 11. It is also submitted that under the Indian Law no specific notice of assignment of debt is necessary and therefore the assignment made by the physical supplier in favour of the plaintiff is valid and therefore the suit filed by the plaintiff is also maintainable. It is further submitted that under the standard terms and condition under which the supply of the bunkers was made, interest is payable at the rate of 20% p.a. and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the contractual rate. 12. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the defendant relying on several judgments of this Court as also other courts that as there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the owners of the defendant/vessel, the present suit is not maintainable. The owners of the defendant/vessel never placed any order with the plaintiff for supply of bunkers. The order for supply of bunkers was placed by the owners with Maritime Brokers Ltd. and therefore it is only the Maritime Brokers which can claim payment for supply of bunkers from the owners of the defendant/vessel. It is submitted that so far as the Maritime Brokers are concerned, they had brought an action in the English Court for recovery of the value of the bunkers and these proceedings have been disposed of because of out of Court settlement reached between the parties and therefore, according to the defendant, the owners of the defendant vessel have made payment for the supply to the Maritime Brokers Ltd. with whom the owners of the defendant/vessel had privity of contract and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. It is also submitted that perusal of the proceedings in English Court shows that Maritime Brokers had in terms demanded price of the bunkers from the owners of the defendant/vessel and as a result of settlement reached they have dropped their claim. A clear inference is that they have received payment from the owners of the defendant/vessel and therefore, now this Court cannot make the owners of the defendant/vessel to pay twice for the same supply. A clear inference is that they have received payment from the owners of the defendant/vessel and therefore, now this Court cannot make the owners of the defendant/vessel to pay twice for the same supply. It is further submitted that the assignment made by the physical supplier in favour of the plaintiff is without notice to the owners of the defendant/vessel and therefore assignment is invalid and on the basis of that assigment the plaintiff is not entitled to institute this suit. It is further submitted that this Court has already held that when interest is to be awarded by this Court, awarding of interest at 20% p.a. would be excessive and therefore, even if this Court awards the interest it should be at a lesser rate. 13. Now, as a result of several judgments of this Court as also other courts, which were relied on by the defendant it is clear that when the suit is instituted for recovery of a maritime claim there has to be a privity of contract between the plaintiff and the owners of the defendant/vessel. In the present case, it is clear that initially the agent of the defendant/vessel had placed an order for supply of the bunkers with Maritime Brokers. The Maritime Brokers placed an order with South Pacific Energy Trading. South Pacific Energy Trading placed the order with WM Maritime Co. That company placed the order with WM Scollay Co. and the plaintiff got the supply made by Petro Trade Service. Therefore, so far as the contract for supply of bunkers is concerned, it was between the owners of the defendant/vessel and the Maritime Brokers and not with the plaintiff or the physical supplier Petro Trade Services and therefore had there been nothing else this suit instituted by the plaintiff would not have been maintainable. But in this case, there are further developments, which in my opinion, would entitle the plaintiff to sue the defendant for the value of the bunkers. In this case, there is no dispute that the defendant/vessel actually received the supply. After the supply was made the physical supplier demanded payment for the supply from the agent of the defendant vessel. At that time when the payment was demanded, it was open to the agent of the defendant vessel to take this stand that they are not liable to make payment to the physical supplier. After the supply was made the physical supplier demanded payment for the supply from the agent of the defendant vessel. At that time when the payment was demanded, it was open to the agent of the defendant vessel to take this stand that they are not liable to make payment to the physical supplier. In stead a stand was taken that payment to the physical supplier cannot be made at that juncture, because there were a number of inter-mediate brokers/traders involved and that the payment can be made only after receiving assurances from other parties that they have no claim. The fax message dated 21-2-1996 reads as under:-- "Under the circumstances, our principals, the vessels owners, are being consulted by their lawyers. As you are well aware, there were a number of intermediate brokers/traders involved, and it is essential for our principals to receive assurances from other parties that they have no legitimate claim on owners for this supply. In fact, in that respect could you please advice us of all parties known to you involved in this chain. Kindly help up to speed up this investigation." 14. Thereafter from the Solicitors of the owners of the defendant/vessel communication dated 1st March, 1996 was received by the physical supplier Petro Trade. That communication is on record at Exh. "G". That communication reads as under:-- "We are London solicitors instructed by the owners of "NIIZURU", whose agents in London are Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd. We have been asked to reply to your fax to Zodiac dated 29th February. We understand that considerable difficulties have arisen by reason of the liquidation of South Pacific Energy Trading and WM Scollay Just as these difficulties affect you, they affect our clients as well and you can be assured that owners wish to be as co-operative as they can in the hope that everything can be sorted out. You can be assured that owners will honour their legal obligations and make a payment if required but you will equally understand that owners will not want to make payment twice over. In this regard, it is important that you know that in addition to your demand for payment, owners have also received a demand for payment from Maritime Brokers Ltd. of Hull of this bunker supply. In this regard, it is important that you know that in addition to your demand for payment, owners have also received a demand for payment from Maritime Brokers Ltd. of Hull of this bunker supply. Can you please contact Maritime Brokers and work out with them which of you will be claiming and which of you will not. If you cannot reach agreement with Maritime Brokers, we will recommend to our clients that they either put up a guarantee along the lines of the attached draft or make a payment into escrow and leave you and Maritime Brokers to sort things out later on. Perhaps we could ask you to contact Maritime Brokers (Tel: 1482 210719) and then let us know how things stand." 15. It is clear from the communication quoted above that the owners of the defendant/vessel did not deny their liability to make payment to the physical supplier on the ground that there is no privity of contract. On the contrary they accepted their liability to make payment to the physical supplier, but the only difficulty that was expressed by them was that a claim was also made by the Maritime Brokers Ltd. They also expressed their willingness to make the payment, in case an arrangement is reached between the physical supplier and the Maritime Brokers. It is also clear from the fax message that even in the absence of any agreement between the Maritime Brokers and the physical supplier the owners of the defendant vessel were willing to make the payment in escrow, so that on settlement of dispute between the Maritime Brokers and the physical supplier that payment can be received either by the Maritime Brokers or by the physical supplier. In my opinion, having taken this stand, the owners of the defendant vessel now cannot claim that the suit of the plaintiff should be dismissed only on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the owners of the defendant/vessel. Had the owners of the defendant/vessel taken a stand that the physical supplier cannot make any claim against them and that the physical supplier has to look only either that the Maritime Broker or other intermediate party who had placed the order, then the physical supplier would have taken its remedy against those parties. Had the owners of the defendant/vessel taken a stand that the physical supplier cannot make any claim against them and that the physical supplier has to look only either that the Maritime Broker or other intermediate party who had placed the order, then the physical supplier would have taken its remedy against those parties. But the owners of the defendant/vessel did chose not to take that stand at that time, which was available to them, in stead they made a representation to the physical supplier that they are willing to make payment to the physical supplier, but they can not make the payment, because a claim has been made by the Maritime Brokers Ltd. in relation to the same supply. In my opinion, therefore, because of this representation made by the owners of the defendant/vessel, the physical supplier altered their position and therefore, in my opinion estoppel will operate against the owners of the defendant/vessel and they will not be able to claim that the physical supplier cannot make any claim against them on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the owners of the defendant/vessel and the physical supplier. 16. As observed above, in the message at Exh. "G" quoted above, the owners of the defendant/vessel had expressed their willingness to make the payment into escrow pending resolution of the claim made by the Maritime Brokers and the physical supplier. It follows, therefore, that so far as the owners of the defendant/vessel are concerned, they had received two claims in relation to the supply, one from the Maritime Brokers and the other from the physical supplier, and therefore only valid defence that could be raised by the owners of the defendant/vessel to the claim made by the physical supplier was that they have either made the payment to the Maritime Brokers or that the Maritime Brokers had agreed to adjust their claim against some other claim that the owners of the defendant/vessel had against the maritime brokers, and therefore, the proceedings in the English Court become relevant. Perusal of the papers of the proceedings in the English Court, which have been produced on record of this suit shows that initially a claim was made by the Maritime Brokers against the owners of the defendant/vessel for price of the bunkers supplied to the defendant/vessel. The claim was of US$ 2,39,356.30. Perusal of the papers of the proceedings in the English Court, which have been produced on record of this suit shows that initially a claim was made by the Maritime Brokers against the owners of the defendant/vessel for price of the bunkers supplied to the defendant/vessel. The claim was of US$ 2,39,356.30. Thereafter, it appears that the owners of the defendant/vessel Karandar Maritime Inc. along with 10 others submitted a counter claim against the Maritime Brokers. The name of the Karandar Maritime Inc. is at Serial No. 6. Perusal of that claim shows that it related to supply of bunkers on 14th January at Piraeus by Elda or Petrotrade Management S.A. It is, thus, clear that the claim in that action in so far as the defendant vessel is concerned, related to the supply of the bunkers which is the subject matter of this suit. In this claim/counter claim made by the owners of the defendant/vessel along with 10 others, it was stated: (2) "The bunkers supplied to each vessel were not free from charge or encumbrance (no charge or incumbrance having been disclosed to or known by in each case the relevant plaintiffs) being charged or encumbranced in favour of the physical supplier and/or (3) the plaintiffs have not enjoyed quiet possession of the goods (no charge or encumbrance having been disclosed to the relevant plaintiffs) claims having been made or intimated against the plaintiffs and/or the vessel and/or other vessels owned or managed by the plaintiffs by the physical suppliers of the goods or some of the same and/or (4) the physical suppliers of the goods were not paid timeously for the said goods and/or (5) the defendant did not procure that the relevant plaintiff or plaintiffs would be liable only to the defendant. 17. It is thus clear that the owners of the defendant/vessel and others who had made this counter claim against the Maritime Brokers denied their liability on the ground that the Maritime Brokers has not made payment to the physical suppliers and that the physical suppliers are making claims against the vessel to whom the supply has been made. Perusal of the counter claim further shows that as against the demand against the defendant/vessel by the Maritime Brokers for US$ 2,39,356.70 a counter claim was US$ 7508.86. Perusal of the counter claim further shows that as against the demand against the defendant/vessel by the Maritime Brokers for US$ 2,39,356.70 a counter claim was US$ 7508.86. Perusal of the counter claim further shows that the owners of the defendant vessel along with others were claiming a declaration to the following effect: "In the premises, the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that they are not liable to pay the defendants for the bunkers supplied pursuant to each of the contracts set out in paragraphs 3 to 8 inclusive herein." It is, thus, clear that the owners of the defendant vessel were claiming a declaration from the English Court that they are not liable to make payment to the Maritime Brokers for the supply of the bunkers to the defendant/vessel because the Maritime Brokers has not made payment to the physical suppliers and therefore the physical suppliers are demanding payment from the owners of the vessel. In these proceedings i.e. the claim of the Maritime Brokers and the counter claim of the owners of the defendant vessel and others, the Court passed the following order. CONSENT ORDER THE PARTIES having agreed the terms of this Order BY CONSENT IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The plaintiffs claim herein be and is hereby dismissed. 2. The defendants counterclaim herein be and is hereby dismissed. 3. Each party shall bear their own costs. Dated the 6th day of December, 1999. 18. It is clear from this order that the claim made by the Maritime Brokers Ltd. against the defendant vessel for the value of the bunkers was dismissed by consent of parties by the English Court and the counter claim made by the defendant/vessel, which was to the tune of US$ 7508.86 was also dismissed. It is thus clear from this order that the claim of the Maritime Brokers against the owners of the defendant vessel for the value of the bunkers was dismissed by the English Court by consent of parties. According to the defendant, this order was taken by the parties because a settlement was reached between the parties. Following questions and answers in the cross-examination of the witness of the defendant by name S.Y. Michael, in my opinion, are relevant:- Q. 219 When was this alleged out of Court settlement arrived at between Karander Maritime and Maritime Brokers? According to the defendant, this order was taken by the parties because a settlement was reached between the parties. Following questions and answers in the cross-examination of the witness of the defendant by name S.Y. Michael, in my opinion, are relevant:- Q. 219 When was this alleged out of Court settlement arrived at between Karander Maritime and Maritime Brokers? A. This out of Court settlement was arrived at on the date of passing the consent order on 6th December, 1999. Q. 220 Did you inform petrotrade or plaintiffs herein about your intention to enter into an alleged out of Court settlement with maritime brokers? A. No. Q. 221 Did you inform your lawyers in Bombay about this alleged out of Court settlement and if so when? Ans. I dont recall when but they are certainly aware of it now. Q. 222 Dont you think it was necessary to disclose this alleged out of Court settlement in your written statement? Ans. No, because settlement was between Maritime Brokers and the various owners of the vessel in that litigation. Q. 223 Will you please read paragraphs 14 and 19 of your affidavit of evidence, the relevant portion of which has been quoted hereinabove and by reading this are you saying that in consideration of Karander giving up its alleged counterclaim Maritime Brokers gave up their claim against Karander? Ans. No. I am not saying that. Q. 225 "By both parties" you are referring to maritime brokers and Karandar Maritime? Ans. "By both parties" I refer to Maritime Brokers and owners of various vessels with whom out of Court settlement was arrived at. Q. 226 If you look at the Counter Claim No. 795 filed by the defendants in English proceedings, does is not show that there are 11 plaintiffs who have raised different claims against Maritime Brokers? Ans. Thats correct. Q. 227 So are you saying that there was an alleged consolidated settlement of the claims of the 11 plaintiffs as against the claim and counterclaims of Maritime Brokers brought against Karandar Maritime and other 10 plaintiffs. Ans. There was an overall settlement between maritime brokers and owners of various vessels in respect of that dispute in the English proceedings. Q. 234 I put it to you that maritime brokers action has in fact been abandoned. Is that correct? Ans. It is not correct. Ans. There was an overall settlement between maritime brokers and owners of various vessels in respect of that dispute in the English proceedings. Q. 234 I put it to you that maritime brokers action has in fact been abandoned. Is that correct? Ans. It is not correct. A settlement was reached between the parties as revealed from the consent order. Q. 280 Did Karandar Maritime make any payment of money to maritime brokers in respect of this bunker transaction? Ans. Yes, in context of the overall settlement. Q. 281 Can you tell us how much money was paid by Karandar Maritime? Ans. The settlement between maritime broker and my principals was confidential between the parties and I am not in a position to divulge any information. The settlement has taken into account the value of the bunkers claimed by Maritime Brokers at US$ 240383.40 as shown in their invoice. Q. 282 Can you please state how much Karandar Maritime has paid maritime brokers in respect of the bunker transaction in question and can you please produce evidence of such alleged payment? Ans. My answer is the same as before. 19. From above quoted deposition of the witness of the defendant it is clear that it is the stand of the defendant that a settlement was reached between the owners of the defendant/vessel and the Maritime Brokers Ltd. and that settlement amounted to payment to Maritime by the owners of the defendant/vessel. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that so far as the defendant/vessel and its owner is concerned, the claim made by the Maritime Brokers was huge, whereas the counter claim made by the owners of the defendant/vessel was small. Therefore it is obvious that even assuming that there is a settlement of the claim made against the defendant/vessel that settlement must involve the claim against the Maritime Brokers and all other claimants who were parties to the counter claim, and therefore, in my opinion, the burden was entirely on the defendant to prove that as a result of settlement reached, there is payment made to the Maritime Brokers, but the witness of the defendant declined to divulge the terms of settlement claiming that they are confidential. Therefore when the matter came up for hearing before me, I put it to the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant that even at this late stage an opportunity can be given to the defendant to prove the terms of settlement. The learned Counsel sought time to take instructions and after taking instructions he stated before me that the defendant is not willing to lead any further evidence to establish the terms of settlement. In the absence of the terms of settlement being either produced on record or being proved by leading secondary evidence, it can not be said on the basis of the documents produced on record of the proceedings in the English Court that the owners of the defendant vessel have made payment of the value of the bunkers to the Maritime Brokers. The position thus emerges is that the defendant does not dispute that it has received the bunkers. When the physical suppliers demanded payment for the supply, the defendant did not deny their liability to make the payment, but expressed its inability to make the payment because of the claim made by the Maritime Brokers and stated that they were afraid that in the face of the claim made by the Maritime Brokers, if they pay the physical suppliers, they may end up making double payment. In the claim that was made by the Maritime Brokers the defendant raised a defence that they are not liable to make payment to the Maritime Brokers, because the Maritime Brokers has not paid to the physical suppliers and therefore the physical suppliers of the bunkers are demanding payment from the owners of the defendant/vessel. In so far as the order passed by the English Court is concerned, it shows that the claim made by the Maritime Brokers for value of the bunkers against the owners of the defendant vessel was dismissed by the English Court. Perusal of the order of the English Court shows that the Maritime Brokers were not able to prove before the Court that they are entitled to receive the value of the bunkers from the owners of the defendant vessel. The defendant says that there is payment to the Maritime Brokers of the value of the bunkers because of the settlement arrived at with the Maritime Brokers but the defendant refuses to divulge the terms of the settlement. The defendant says that there is payment to the Maritime Brokers of the value of the bunkers because of the settlement arrived at with the Maritime Brokers but the defendant refuses to divulge the terms of the settlement. In these circumstances, therefore, as the terms of the settlement are within the special knowledge of the defendant and as the terms of settlement were relevant for deciding the defence that was raised by the defendant, the conduct of the defendant of taking a stand that they cannot divulge the terms of the settlement because they are confidential makes them liable for drawing adverse inference against the defendant and the adverse inference to be drawn against the defendant is that if the defendant had disclosed the terms of the settlement in the Court they would have shown either that the Maritime Brokers have given up their claim for the value of the bunkers against the owners of the defendant vessel or that they had agreed that they are not entitled to recover the value of the bunkers from the plaintiffs, because the physical supplier of the bunkers has not been paid by the Maritime Brokers and therefore he had made claim against the owners of the defendant/vessel. It is pertinent to note here that the alleged settlement between the owners of the defendant/vessel and the Maritime Brokers was arrived at during the pendency of this suit, after the owners of the defendant vessel were served with the proceedings in this suit. In my opinion, in these circumstances, therefore the defendant is liable to be held by their promise that they are liable to make payment to the physical suppliers, in case, they are not required to make payment to the Maritime Brokers. In addition, the plaintiff has expressed his willingness to give an undertaking to this Court to indemnify the defendant against any claim made by anybody including the Maritime Brokers in relation to the supply of bunkers in question. In these circumstanes, therefore in my opinion, the plaintiff is entitled to maintain this suit for recovery of the value of the bunkers. Before me, there was no dispute raised about the amount that is claimed as the value of the bunkers and therefore, in my opinion, a decree is liable to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant/vessel for the value of the bunkers. 20. Before me, there was no dispute raised about the amount that is claimed as the value of the bunkers and therefore, in my opinion, a decree is liable to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant/vessel for the value of the bunkers. 20. The next question for consideration is whether the assignment of the claim made by the petrotrade in favour of the plaintiff is valid and whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit because of any defect in the assignment. 21. The documents produced on record show that the plaintiff has made payment of the value of the bunkers to the petrotrade, who admittedly are the physical suppliers of the bunkers. Therefore, the claim of physical suppliers for the value of the bunkers would be actionable claim which is capable of being assigned. The deed of assignment that has been produced on record establishes that the petrotrade has assigned their claim in favour of the plaintiff. One more aspect that requires to be considered is that the Petrotrade had made supply of the bunkers to the defendant/vessel on the order placed with them by the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff had to make payment to the petrotrade, because the owners of the defendant/vessel had declined to make payment to the physical suppliers/petrotrade. In my opinion, therefore, no fault can be found with the assignment of the claim by the petrotrade in favour of the plaintiff. In my opinion in any case, in the face of the willingness of the plaintiff to indemnify the owners of the defendant vessel against all claims including the claim made by the petrotrade in relation to the supply in question, the defendant in my opinion, cannot raise any objection to the assignment. 22. The question that now requires to be considered is about the rate of interest. It is admitted position that as per the standard terms and conditions, interest at the rate of 20% p.a. is chargeable. Before me it was common ground that because of the judgment of this Court, the plaintiff would not be entitled to interest at the agreed rate. It was also common ground before me that in case of transaction in US Dollars, the rate of interest at 8% p.a. has been allowed by this Court in the past. Before me it was common ground that because of the judgment of this Court, the plaintiff would not be entitled to interest at the agreed rate. It was also common ground before me that in case of transaction in US Dollars, the rate of interest at 8% p.a. has been allowed by this Court in the past. In my opinion, therefore, it will be appropriate to award interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till the date of realisation of the amount. The learned Counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that because the owners of the defendant/vessel had to furnish security for release of the vessel after it was arrested in this proceeding and for that purpose they were required to pay interest for the period during which the bank guarantee has operated. In my opinion, the submission is not well-founded. In as much as I have found that the plaintiff was entitled to make the claim and therefore the plaintiff was justified in seeking the order of arrest of the vessel and therefore no relaxation from the payment of interest can be granted to the defendant on that ground. 23. In the result, therefore, the plaintiff succeeds. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms of prayer Clause (a) with the modification that the rate of interest shall be 8% p.a. and not 20% p.a. as claimed in this prayer clause. This decree is subject to the condition that within a period of four weeks from today the plaintiff submits an undertaking in this Court undertaking to this Court to indemnify the owners of the defendant/vessel against any claim made by anybody including the petrotrade and the Maritime Brokers in relation to value of the bunkers, which is the subject matter of this suit. The defendant shall pay costs of the suit to the plaintiff as incurred by the plaintiff. Undertaking directed to be given by the plaintiff shall be for a period of one year with liberty to the defendant to apply to the Court for further directions. At the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant, the execution of the decree shall remain stayed for a period of eight weeks from today. Parties to act on ordinary copy of the order duly authenticated by the Associate/Personal Secretary as a true copy. Plaintiff succeeded. -----