Board ‘ignored’ queries on legal review after resignation, says HDFC Bank ex-chair Atanu Chakraborty

2 min readJun 27, 2026 09:14 PM IST

Chakraborty said that he had hoped his resignation would prompt the board to reflect on the concerns he had raised, rather than treat the matter as what he described as a “compliance exercise.”

Former HDFC Bank chairman Atanu Chakraborty on Saturday said he had repeatedly sought clarity from the bank’s board on the scope and legal basis of the independent review initiated after his resignation in March but got no response from the lender.

According to CNBC-TV18, Chakraborty also inquired about the legal provisions under which the review was being conducted, but said those queries too went unanswered.

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.

Chakraborty did not interact with the law firms which were appointed by the bank’s board.

On March 18, Chakraborty resigned as chairman of the bank 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 said that the board of directors have appointed external law firms — domestic as well as international — to review the points highlighted by Chakraborty in his resignation letter.

Chakraborty said that he had hoped his resignation would prompt the board to reflect on the concerns he had raised, rather than treat the matter as what he described as a “compliance exercise.”

Story continues below this ad

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.

After the probe, 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.