In an exclusive response to CNBC-TV18 following the bank’s disclosure of a “clean chit” by external law firms, Chakraborty said he had “repeatedly asked the HDFC Bank Board for the scope of the legal review” but was not provided any clarity.
He further said he had also sought details on “the law under which the legal review was being conducted,” but received no response from the Board.
Chakraborty added that he had hoped his resignation would prompt the Board to introspect on the concerns he raised, rather than focus on what he described as a “compliance exercise.”
The comments come after HDFC Bank informed stock exchanges on Friday (June 26) that an independent legal review conducted by two external law firms found no evidence substantiating allegations made by Chakraborty in his resignation statement.
The former chairman had resigned in March this year, citing ethical concerns.
In its exchange filing, HDFC Bank said the review was conducted by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Wadia Ghandy & Co. The investigation examined whether concerns raised in Chakraborty’s resignation letter were supported by evidence and whether he had recorded any unresolved dissent during his tenure.
According to the bank, the review spanned nearly three months and involved scrutiny of thousands of documents, including Board and committee meeting minutes, agenda papers and other records covering the two years preceding Chakraborty’s resignation.
Sources indicated that the law firms also reviewed Board communications and emails linked to events leading up to the resignation.
The firms interviewed all independent directors, committee chairpersons, HDFC Bank Managing Director & CEO, and senior executives responsible for control and assurance functions.
HDFC Bank said both the bank and the external law firms had repeatedly requested Chakraborty to participate in the review process, though an interview with him ultimately did not take place.
In their report submitted 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 found no contemporaneous evidence in Board or committee minutes, meeting materials or related communications supporting the concerns raised by Chakraborty. Witness interviews also did not corroborate the allegations, according to the filing.
