4 min readMumbaiJun 27, 2026 06:43 AM IST
HDFC Bank on Friday said external law firms, which conducted a “thorough and objective review” of its former Chairman Atanu Chakraborty’s statement about “certain practices and happenings” in the bank, reported that Chakraborty’s statement and its implications were “not substantiated”.
Giving a “clean chit” to the bank, the law firms — Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC and Wadia Ghandy & Co — said the contemporaneous evidence reviewed was inconsistent with Chakraborty’s statement, and law firms’ review did not identify any basis for the statement. Interestingly, Chakraborty did not interact with the law firms which were appointed by the bank’s board.
“The contemporaneous evidence reviewed was inconsistent with Chakraborty’s statement, and external law firms’ review did not identify any basis for the statement,” the law firms said, according to a stock exchange filing by HDFC Bank.
On March 18, HDFC Bank Part-time Chairman and Independent Director Atanu Chakraborty has resigned with immediate effect, saying that “certain happenings and practices within the bank are not in congruence with my personal values and ethics”. Six days later, HDFC Bank announced that the board of directors appointed external law firms — domestic and international — to review the points highlighted by Chakraborty in his resignation letter.
The law firms said the legal review was conducted over a three-month period and involved the review of thousands of documents and interviews of the Independent Directors and several members of senior management.
“The bank and external law firms repeatedly requested that Chakraborty speak with them as part of the legal review, but ultimately the interview with Chakraborty did not occur,” the law firms said. Having now completed an extensive legal review, law firms found that Chakraborty’s statement and its implications were not substantiated by the record and witness interviews, they said.
“Specifically, the minutes of the meetings Chakraborty attended were a product of a comprehensive drafting, review and approval process that afforded Chakraborty an opportunity to record any “happenings and practices” that purportedly were not in congruence with his personal values and ethics,” they said.
Story continues below this ad
They said no contemporaneous support for Chakraborty’s statement was found in the board or board committee minutes or materials reviewed, or in contemporaneous communications about the review and approval of the minutes of meetings he attended.
“Witness interviews did not support or substantiate the statement,” they said. Although Chakraborty referred to the Dubai matter in post-resignation public statements, no contemporaneous evidence was identified reflecting that he raised any concerns about his personal values and ethics, or that he disagreed with any decisions made by the board or relevant board committees, in connection with the Dubai matter (or any other matters that the Board and those Committees addressed),” the law firms said.
HDFC Band said external law firms reviewed the minutes and agenda materials of meetings of the board and the relevant Committees during the reference time period. “Further, the external law firms interacted individually with each of the Independent Directors including the Chairpersons of the relevant Committees, the Managing Director & CEO and other senior management personnel heading certain control and assurance functions of the bank,” the bank said.
“The review evaluated if any concern was evident as raised in the statement made by Atanu Chakraborty in his resignation letter, and if Chakraborty recorded any dissent, and whether it was addressed,” the bank said.
Story continues below this ad
“The law firms have submitted their report to the board post the conclusion of the legal review,” the bank said.