In an exclusive statement to CNBC-TV18 after the bank announced a “clean chit” from external law firms, Chakraborty mentioned that he had “consistently asked the HDFC Bank Board for the scope of the legal review” but lacked clarity on the matter.
He also pointed out that he inquired about “the legal basis for the review,” but the Board did not respond.
Chakraborty noted that he hoped his resignation would lead the Board to reflect on his concerns instead of merely viewing it as a “compliance exercise.”
These remarks follow HDFC Bank’s notification to stock exchanges on Friday (June 26), stating that two external law firms conducted an independent legal review and found no evidence supporting the allegations made by Chakraborty in his resignation statement.
The former chairman resigned in March this year due to ethical concerns.
In the exchange filing, HDFC Bank revealed that the review was performed by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Wadia Ghandy & Co. The investigation aimed to determine whether the issues mentioned in Chakraborty’s resignation letter were backed by evidence and if there were any unresolved dissent during his time at the bank.
As per the bank, the review lasted nearly three months and involved analyzing thousands of documents, including minutes from Board and committee meetings, agenda papers, and other records from the two years prior to Chakraborty’s resignation.
Sources indicated that the law firms also assessed Board communications and emails related to events that led to the resignation.
The firms spoke with all independent directors, committee chairpersons, HDFC Bank Managing Director & CEO, and senior executives responsible for control and assurance functions.
HDFC Bank reported that both the bank and the external law firms had continually urged Chakraborty to take part in the review process, although an interview with him ultimately did not occur.
In their report to the Board, the law firms concluded that Chakraborty’s resignation statement “and its implications were not substantiated by the record and witness interviews.”
The report revealed no contemporaneous evidence in Board or committee minutes, meeting materials, or related communications supporting the concerns raised by Chakraborty. Additionally, witness interviews did not validate the allegations, according to the filing.
