ORDER

This civil revision is against the order passed in execution of an award by the Sub Court in E.P.No.489/2009. Union of India is the respondent in an arbitration proceeding initiated. It initially culminated in an award at the first instance. It was taken up before this Court in MFA.No.452/1997. This court in turn set aside the award passed by the arbitrator. Later on it was taken up before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 311/2003 and 312/2003. The Apex Court in turn set aside the verdict given by this Court by restoring the award of the arbitrator, for recovery of an amount of Rs.50,22,612/- with 18% interest.

2. The award, hence, put in execution before the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The Sub Court in turn passed the impugned order allowing EA.No.1167/2016 directing the judgment debtor to issue a cheque for Rs.2,37,94,739/- with the interest accrued thereon with cost of E.P by its order dated 30/3/2017. It is against that order in the E.P., the judgment debtor, the Union of India, came up in revision mainly on three grounds. Firstly on the ground that, the decree was sought to be executed by a total stranger and not by the decree-holder company. Secondly, on the ground that the power of attorney three in numbers relied on by the petitioner who sought to execute the decree cannot be construed as an assignment of decree or proper power of attorney to execute the decree. Thirdly, on the ground that the power of attorney relied on as that of the decree holder company cannot be construed as a valid power of attorney, and lastly, on the ground that none of the powers of attorney amounts to an irrevocable power of attorney. Necessarily, they will not get the sanctity of a decree holder or the person claiming under the decree holder. The first power of attorney Exhibit R5(a) is a general power of attorney (copy produced), by which certain matters, including the construction of the work, were given to the power of attorney holder. The abovesaid power of attorney was executed by Asian Techs Limited, a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, executed by the Director Sri.M.C.George in favour of one Sri.P.C.Thomas, son of Chackappan. The second power of attorney executed is Ext.R5(C). It is also a general power of attorney executed by the company appointing the very same P.C.Thomas, Son of Chakkappan, to do certain things, i.e., pertaining to the work taken up by the company, execute documents and other things, hypothecation, etc., in connection with the above work, and to initiate any arbitration proceedings arising out of the execution of the work.

3. Before going into the third power of attorney, it is necessary to have an understanding with respect to the earlier two general powers of attorney. The main argument from the part of the person who initiated the execution is that by virtue of the abovesaid powers of attorney, authority was given to do certain construction work and all other works connected, even a permission was also granted to initiate arbitration proceedings. None of the power of attorney is an irrevocable power of attorney, but only a general power of attorney given in the name of P.C.Thomas. Admittedly, by virtue of the power assigned and given under these two powers of attorney, no arbitration proceedings were initiated by the power holder P.C. Thomas. On the other hand, arbitration proceedings were initiated by the company by name Asian Techs Ltd., though represented through the very same person, P.C. Thomas. That does not mean that it is an arbitration proceeding initiated by P.C Thomas in his individual capacity. Hence, the claim that he is a party in his individual capacity to the said proceedings can not hold good. In fact, P.C.Thomas is not a party to the arbitration proceedings in his personal capacity. Hence, he cannot claim that he is a party to the arbitration proceedings in his individual capacity and can not claim that the award, deemed decree was passed in his favour, but it is