Inspection is available to any person for the specified records
Section 36 of the LLP Act, 2008 makes the incorporation document, names of partners and changes, Statement of Account and Solvency, and annual return filed with the Registrar available for inspection by any person in the prescribed manner and on payment of the prescribed fee. This guide was checked on 27 October 2026. It does not state a current portal fee, promise access to every internal document, or replace the applicable access procedure. LLP Act, 2008: section 36, inspection of Registrar-held documents.
Start with the exact LLP identity
Verify the legal name and registration identifier before retrieving a similarly named entity’s documents. Retain source, retrieval date, filing date and period covered for each record. A name match is a search lead; it is not sufficient to establish identity. Keep a document inventory that distinguishes requested records from those actually obtained and readable.
Build an event timeline rather than one combined partner list
The incorporation record explains a starting position. Subsequent partner-change filings and annual returns may relate to different dates. Reconcile additions and cessations in sequence, investigating duplicates and incomplete events. Do not describe a former partner appearing in an old filing as a current partner without tracing later changes.
Treat filed financial information as dated evidence
A filed Statement of Account and Solvency or annual return is valuable, but its date and reporting period matter. It does not by itself establish today’s cash balance, the absence of later liabilities or the accuracy of every underlying entry. For credit, acquisition or vendor diligence, obtain current accounts, confirmations and management explanations as needed.
State the limits of the conclusion
Section 36 is a public-inspection provision for the specified filings. It does not itself grant access to all bank records, customer contracts or internal partner deliberations. Missing or unreadable retrievals should remain exceptions, not be silently treated as nil balances or proof of non-filing. Distinguish portal availability, retrieval failure, actual non-filing and inconsistency in a filed document.
Applicable primary references
LLP Act, 2008: section 36, inspection of Registrar-held documents
Six worked illustrations
All facts and amounts below are fictional. Assumptions describe the model, not additional statutory rules.
Illustrative example 1: Document completeness
A diligence plan identifies eight relevant filed records. Six readable records are obtained and two remain unavailable. Retrieval coverage is 75%. The two gaps must remain in the report; they are not evidence that the underlying transactions never occurred.
Illustrative example 2: Partner movement
The incorporation record names three partners. Verified subsequent events add two and record one cessation, with no duplicate identities or other changes. The reconciled count at the stated event cut-off is four: 3 + 2 − 1. It is not a guarantee that no unfiled later change exists.
Illustrative example 3: Duplicate person entries
Five retrieved entries include two records for the same partner under a spelling variation. There are four unique people. Preserve the matching evidence and avoid treating the duplicate as an additional partner.
Illustrative example 4: Age of financial evidence
A statement covers the year ended 31 March 2026 and is inspected on 27 October 2026. The period-end information is 210 calendar days old. This is an evidence-age metric, not a statutory expiry of the document.
Illustrative example 5: Client-supplied versus filed figures
A management summary states liabilities of ₹8,50,000 while the comparable filed figure is ₹8,00,000. The ₹50,000 difference needs a period-and-classification reconciliation. Do not declare fraud or automatically substitute the older amount.
Illustrative example 6: Independent records agree
A verified opening contribution balance is ₹5,00,000, accepted additions ₹1,50,000 and accepted reductions ₹50,000. The bridge is ₹6,00,000. If a comparable filed record shows ₹5,80,000, the unexplained gap is ₹20,000, requiring source review rather than an invented adjustment.
Ten-step verification table
| Step | Action | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Identify the exact LLP | Legal name and registration identifier |
| 2 | Define the review date and scope | Diligence purpose and cut-off |
| 3 | List relevant section 36 filings | Record inventory |
| 4 | Use the prescribed inspection route | Current procedure and receipt |
| 5 | Retain source and dates | Retrieval and filing evidence |
| 6 | Check readability and completeness | Obtained records and missing pages |
| 7 | Reconcile partner events | Identity and chronological movements |
| 8 | Reconcile financial periods and figures | Comparable statements and bridges |
| 9 | Obtain current corroboration | Accounts, confirmations and explanations |
| 10 | Report limits and unresolved gaps | Evidence-based conclusion |
Sixteen practitioner FAQs
1. Who may inspect the specified filings?
Section 36 says any person, subject to prescribed manner and fee.
2. Is membership of the LLP required?
The cited public-inspection wording is not limited to partners.
3. Which records are expressly covered?
The incorporation document, partner names and changes, filed Statement of Account and Solvency, and annual return.
4. Does this create access to every internal contract?
No such general right is established by section 36.
5. Can the current fee be inferred from an old screenshot?
Check the current prescribed route and charges rather than using an unsupported figure.
6. Does finding a similar legal name settle identity?
No. Match the registration identifier and document details.
7. Why retain the filing date and reporting period?
They distinguish when information was filed from the period it describes.
8. Does the incorporation list prove current partners?
Reconcile subsequent changes and the relevant cut-off.
9. How should spelling variants be handled?
Resolve identity with supporting records and retain the matching basis.
10. Is a filed statement proof of today’s cash balance?
No. Obtain current evidence appropriate to the diligence purpose.
11. Does an unavailable download prove non-filing?
No. Separate technical retrieval gaps from verified filing status.
12. Should an unreadable page be treated as zero?
No. Record the gap and seek a readable source.
13. How should management and filed figures be compared?
Align period, unit and classification before explaining the difference.
14. Does a numerical mismatch automatically prove dishonesty?
No. Investigate and document the cause before characterising it.
15. Can public inspection replace confirmations?
Its sufficiency depends on the task; additional current evidence may be required.
16. What should the final report include?
Sources, dates, reconciliations, unresolved gaps and clear limits on the conclusion.
Conclusion
Use Registrar-held LLP filings to reconcile legal identity, partners and filed financial information, while distinguishing historic disclosures from current verified facts.