HDFC Bank on June 26 said an external legal review found no evidence to substantiate the concerns raised by Atanu Chakraborty in his resignation letter, following a three-month examination of thousands of documents and interviews with independent directors and senior management personnel. 

The private-sector lender disclosed the findings in a regulatory filing to the BSE and the National Stock Exchange. The review was conducted by US law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Indian law firm Wadia Ghandy & Co. 

HDFC Bank had announced the review on March 24, 2026, to assess whether the concerns referred to in Chakraborty’s resignation statement were supported by the record. It also examined whether he had formally recorded any dissent and, if so, whether the bank had addressed it. 

The terms of reference covered the two years preceding Chakraborty’s resignation. The law firms reviewed board and committee meeting minutes, agenda papers, related communications and other documents and information. 

They also held individual discussions with all independent directors, including the chairpersons of relevant board committees, as well as the managing director and chief executive officer and senior executives heading certain control and assurance functions. 

According to the statement included in the bank’s filing, “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 filing said HDFC Bank and the external law firms repeatedly asked Chakraborty to participate in an interview as part of the exercise. However, the interaction ultimately did not take place. 

“The Bank and External Law Firms repeatedly requested that Chakraborty speak with External Law Firms as part of the legal review, but ultimately the interview with Chakraborty did not occur,” the statement said. 

Following the review, the law firms concluded that the concerns contained in Chakraborty’s statement were not supported by the documents examined or the interviews conducted. 

“Having now completed an extensive legal review, External Law Firms found that Mr. Chakraborty’s Statement and its implications were not substantiated by the record and witness interviews,” the firms said. 

The review found that the minutes of meetings attended by Chakraborty went through a comprehensive drafting, review and approval process. According to the law firms, this process gave him an opportunity to formally record any “happenings and practices” that he believed were not aligned with his personal values and ethics. 

However, the firms said they found no contemporaneous material supporting such concerns in the minutes or agenda documents of the board and its committees. They also found no such evidence in communications relating to the review and approval of minutes for the meetings attended by Chakraborty. 

The witness interviews conducted during the exercise also did not substantiate the statement, according to the filing. 

The review separately examined references made by Chakraborty to the Dubai matter in public statements after his resignation. The external firms said they found no contemporaneous evidence showing that he had raised concerns linked to his personal values and ethics in connection with that matter. 

They also found no record suggesting that he had disagreed with decisions taken by the board or the relevant board committees in relation to the Dubai matter or other issues considered by those bodies. 

“Although Mr. 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. 

The report has been submitted to HDFC Bank’s board following the completion of the review. 

“In sum, the contemporaneous evidence reviewed was inconsistent with Mr. Chakraborty’s Statement, and External Law Firms’ review did not identify any basis for the Statement,” the firms concluded. 

The exchange filing did not contain a response from Chakraborty to the findings of the legal review.

Published on: Jun 26, 2026 10:21 PM IST