In absence of express contract power cannot be invoked by agency.

The plaintiff is the applicant in the original application which has been filed for interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent, his men, etc., from interfering with the possession and operation of the vehicle TNX.5455 by the applicant on the route Cuddalore to Villupuram and the 1st respondent from operating any other vehicle on the route in question pending disposal of the suit. R.Jeyasimna Babu, J., on 28. 1994 has granted interim injunction for a period of fourweeks and ordered notice to the respondents. The 1st respondent has filed Application No.5173 of 1994 for vacating the interim injunction.

2. The short facts which are relevant for the disposal of the above applications are as follows: The 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle TNX.5455. According to the applicant, the 1st respondent has borrowed certain amounts from M/s.H.Mahaveerchand Kothari and executed hire purchase agreement in favour of the said M/ s.H.Mahaveerchand Kothari in respect of the vehicle in question. The 1st respondent has also borrowed amounts from the applicant on various dates as hand loan. Since the 1st respondent could not repay and discharge the amount due under the hire purchase agreement executed in favour of M/s.H.Mahaveerchand Kothari, he approached the applicant and requested him to come to his aid. The applicant helped the 1st respondent and the total liability as on 111. 1993 was arrived at Rs.9 lakhs. It is agreed between the parties that the vehicle TNX.5455 will be handed over to the applicant for the purpose of operating on the route by transferring the said vehicle and that the applicant will adjust the net collection towards his dues after deducting all expenses in respect of the said vehicle. The said agreement was entered into at Madras on 111. 1993. Stamp paper was purchased and the said arrangement was confirmed by the 1st respondent in writing on 111. 1993. The 1st respondent has also executed a hire purchase agreement in favour of the applicant at Madras on the same day in respect of the vehicle in question for Rs.9 lakhs. The said vehicle was handed over to the applicant and he is in absolute possession of the same. An endorsement of hire purchase was also made on 21. 1994 in the R.C.Book. The 1st respondent agreed to pay the entire amount and in the meantime will not disturb the possession and operation of the vehicle by the applicant and will not also replace the said vehicle.

3. According to the applicant, in pursuance of the aforesaid arrangement, he discharged the loan due to M/s.H.Mahaveerchand Kothari. Subsequent to the agreement dated 111. 1993, the 1st respondent again received hand loans on various dates through his representative Suresh Kumar, apart from the expenditures incurred by the applicant by paying quarterly taxes, etc., which comes to Rs.6,31,220. According to the applicant, a sum of Rs.15,31,220 is due and the 1st respondent is liable to pay the same. The 1st respondent has also executed a general power of attorney coupled with interest dated 22. 1994, which was registered as Document No.115/94 on the file of the 4th respondent. The 1st respondent, with a view to defraud and cheat the creditors, is trying to replace the said vehicle by filing an application to the 2nd respondent behind the back of the applicant. The 1st respondent has also revoked the power of attorney on 23. 1994 within a short period of 23 days without notice to the applicant. He has also set up his father to file a suit in the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore and obtained an order of injunction to stop the vehicle. As a hire purchase financier, the applicant is the owner of the vehicle till all the amounts due to the applicant are paid and adjusted. In spite of repeated demands and notice dated 23. 1994. The 1st respondent had not stopped his illegal activities. Therefore, the present original application for injunction as detailed above.

4. The injunction application was resisted by the 1st respondent by fili