Belated registration failed for the relevant period, but mining partnership validity survived because the rule did not forbid the contract.

Belated filing justified rejection of registration for the relevant three-month period, as the application was beyond the prescribed time for that assessment year. A partnership formed to work a mine under an assignment made without prior sanction was nevertheless not prohibited by the mining statute or rules, because the transfer rule regulated transfer of the lease but did not forbid the partnership itself, and section 4 dealt with original grants rather than post-grant transfers. The agreement was therefore not illegal or forbidden by law, and the partnerships remained entitled to registration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal could reject the application for registration of the partnership deed dated 1 November 1954 on the ground of belated filing for the period concerned. (ii) Whether a partnership formed for working a mine on an assignment made without prior sanction under the mining rules is hit by the mining statute and rules, and whether such partnership is entitled to registration or is illegal or forbidden by law.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal could reject the application for registration of the partnership deed dated 1 November 1954 on the ground of belated filing for the period concerned.

Analysis: The application for registration related to a period of three months forming part of the assessment year 1956-57. The filing was beyond the prescribed time, and the objection to belatedness was accepted as a valid ground affecting that limited period.

Conclusion: The answer was against the assessee, and the Tribunal was entitled to reject registration for that period on the ground of limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether a partnership formed for working a mine on an assignment made without prior sanction under the mining rules is hit by the mining statute and rules, and whether such partnership is entitled to registration or is illegal or forbidden by law.

Analysis: The transfer rule regulated transfer of a mining lease with prior sanction of the State Government, but it did not prohibit the formation of a partnership for working the mine. Section 4 of the mining statute governed the original grant of leases and was not attracted to a post-grant transfer. The contract was neither prohibited by law nor entered into with an intention to break the law, and it was not shown that performance of the partnership agreement was impossible except by disobedience to law. Illegality in performance did not convert an otherwise valid partnership into an illegal one.

Conclusion: The answer was in favour of the assessee. The partnerships were not hit by the mining statute and rules, were entitled to registration, and were neither illegal nor forbidden by law.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered partly against the assessee on the issue of belated registration, but the challenge to the legality and registrability of the mining partnerships failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A partnership is not void merely because it is formed for working a mine under an assignment lacking prior sanction, where the relevant rule regulates transfer but does not prohibit the partnership itself and the contract can be performed lawfully.

---