Shri Karikho Kri vs. Dr. Mohesh Chai And 3 Ors.

IA(C)/90/2026HC GauhatiGSTCNR GAHC04000589202621 June 2026Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

This matter concerns an interlocutory application filed by the applicant, Shri Karikho Kri, in an election petition. The applicant sought to summon specific witnesses (Witness Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14) to produce original documents and tender evidence. These witnesses are described as official witnesses, and the relevant documents are stated to be in their custody. The application was heard by the Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench. The respondents, including Dr. Mohesh Chai and others, were represented by their respective counsel. The applicant's counsel argued that the summoned witnesses were necessary for the proper adjudication of the election petition.

Held

The Court held that the witnesses sought to be summoned, including an Inspector of Police, a Senior Sub-Registrar, the Returning Officer, a Joint Secretary/PIO, District Transport Officers, Branch Managers of banks, a Branch Manager of LIC, an Income Tax Officer, and the Deputy Commissioner of CGST & CX, appear to be necessary for the proper adjudication of the election petition. The Court reasoned that these individuals are official witnesses and the relevant documents are stated to be in their custody. Consequently, the Court deemed it appropriate to allow the application. Summons were ordered to be issued to the specified witnesses. The interlocutory application was allowed and disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Plaintiff Witnesses numbered 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14 are necessary for the proper adjudication of the election petition, and if so, whether summons should be issued for them to produce original documents and tender evidence. Petitioner's Contention: The applicant argued that the summoned witnesses are official witnesses and possess relevant documents crucial for the fair and proper adjudication of the election petition. Therefore, their testimony and the production of documents are essential. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the revenue or state authorities regarding this interlocutory application. The focus appears to be on the necessity of the witnesses for the election petitioner.

Sections Cited

CGST Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040008762024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/90/2026 Shri Karikho Kri Age: 51 Occupation : Address:aged about 51 years S/o Late Kotri Kri resident of Kri Niwas Telluliang village PO/PS Tezu district Lohit AP VERSUS Dr. Mohesh Chai and 3 Ors. Age: 0 Occupation : Address:aged about 51 years S/o Late Tankakso Chai resident of T. Chai residence Chai Colony Tezu PO/PS Lohit District AP 2:Shri Badang Tayang Age: 0 Occupation : Address:aged about 43 years S/o Shri Banumso Tayang reside tof Telluliang Village Tezu PO/PS Tezu Lohit district Page No.# 2/4 AP 3:Ms. Jeremai Krong Age: 0 Occupation : Address:aged about 38 years D/o Late Turkho Krong resident of Changliang village Tezu PO/PS Tezu District Lohit AP 4:The Returning Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Address:for election to State Legislative Assembly for 44-Tezu(ST) Assembly Constituency Arunachal Pradesh PO/PS Tezu Lohit district AP ------------ Advocate for : Tanur Gao Advocate for : Dicky Panging Sr. Adv appearing for Dr. Mohesh Chai and 3 Ors.: Advocate , , , appearing for 2, 3, 4, respectively. Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

ORDER Date : 22.06.2026 Heard Mr. A. Tatak, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M. Doji, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1; Mr. K. Mena, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2; and Ms. N. Anju, learned counsel for opposite party No.

This is an application praying for issuance of summons to the Plaintiff Witness Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14 to produce original documents and tender evidence on behalf of the election petitioner. Perused the application. The witnesses sought to be summoned appear to be necessary for the proper adjudication of the election petition, as they are official witnesses and the relevant documents are stated to be in their custody. Thus, I deem it appropriate to allow this application by issuing summons to the aforesaid plaintiff witnesses. Accordingly, let summons be issued to the following Plaintiff Witnesses:-

Witness No. 3- Inspector Dumgandu Singpho, Officer-In-Charge, Police Station Tezu, Arunachal Pradesh.

Witness No. 5- Sr. Sub Registrar, Kamrup(M), Assam.

Witness No. 6- The Returning Officer, 44- Tezu(ST) Assembly Constituency, Tezu, Arunachal Pradesh.

Page No.# 4/4

Witness No. 7- Shri A. Mossang, Joint Secretary/PIO, Legislative Assembly, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh.

Witness No. 8- The District Transport Officer (DTO), Tezu, Lohit District, Arunachal Pradesh.

Witness No. 9- The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Tezu Branch, Lohit District, Arunachal Pradesh.

Witness No. 10- The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Tezu Branch, Lohit District, Arunachal Pradesh.

Witness No. 11- The Branch Manager, LIC, Branch Office Doomdooma, Tinsukia District, Assam.

Witness No. 12- The District Transport Officer (DTO), Itanagar Capital Region, Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh.

10.

Witness No. 13- The Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1 (1), Dibrugarh, Assam.

11.

Witness No. 14- The Deputy Commissioner, Office of Commissioner, CGST & CX, Itanagar, Sector ‘A’, Naharlagun- 791110. Interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.