HDFC Bank shares in focus: Legal review found no evidence backing Atanu Chakraborty's claims
HDFC Bank said the witness interviews did not support or substantiate the statement. Chakraborty referred to the Dubai matter in post-resignation public statements but the contemporaneous evidence reviewed was inconsistent with his statement.
- Jun 29, 2026,
- Updated Jun 29, 2026 10:10 AM IST
HDFC Bank Ltd shares are in focus on Monday after the bank in an exchange filing said that external law firms Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Wadia Ghandy & Co found that former Part-time Chairman and Independent Director Atanu Chakraborty's statement, and its implications, were not substantiated by documentary records or witness interviews.
Besides, the stock was also in news as reports suggest Sashidhar Jagdishan is likely to be reappointed for a third term as managing director and chief executive of HDFC Bank following the outcome of external law firm review.
The private lender said 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.
"No contemporaneous support for Mr. 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," the legal review suggested.
HDFC Bank said the witness interviews did not support or substantiate the statement; and 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.
"In sum, the contemporaneous evidence reviewed was inconsistent with Chakraborty’s statement, and External Law Firms’ review did not identify any basis for the statement," HDFC Bank said.
In its resignation, Chakraborty cited 'certain happenings and practices within the bank which were not in congruence with his personal values and ethics, casting a shadow over the board and the management team. The legal review evaluated if any concern was evident as raised in the statement made by Chakraborty in his resignation letter, and if Chakraborty recorded any dissent, and whether it was addressed.
The RBI in March highlighted that its supervisory assessments do not indicate any material concerns regarding governance or conduct. The bank continued to remain well-capitalised with adequate liquidity, the central bank had said.
Meanwhile, Chakraborty in an interview to Moneycontrol said the terms of the reference and legal framework of the review conducted by law firms was not shared with him. He insisted that the bank’s board failed to introspect on his resignation letter.
HDFC Bank Ltd shares are in focus on Monday after the bank in an exchange filing said that external law firms Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Wadia Ghandy & Co found that former Part-time Chairman and Independent Director Atanu Chakraborty's statement, and its implications, were not substantiated by documentary records or witness interviews.
Besides, the stock was also in news as reports suggest Sashidhar Jagdishan is likely to be reappointed for a third term as managing director and chief executive of HDFC Bank following the outcome of external law firm review.
The private lender said 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.
"No contemporaneous support for Mr. 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," the legal review suggested.
HDFC Bank said the witness interviews did not support or substantiate the statement; and 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.
"In sum, the contemporaneous evidence reviewed was inconsistent with Chakraborty’s statement, and External Law Firms’ review did not identify any basis for the statement," HDFC Bank said.
In its resignation, Chakraborty cited 'certain happenings and practices within the bank which were not in congruence with his personal values and ethics, casting a shadow over the board and the management team. The legal review evaluated if any concern was evident as raised in the statement made by Chakraborty in his resignation letter, and if Chakraborty recorded any dissent, and whether it was addressed.
The RBI in March highlighted that its supervisory assessments do not indicate any material concerns regarding governance or conduct. The bank continued to remain well-capitalised with adequate liquidity, the central bank had said.
Meanwhile, Chakraborty in an interview to Moneycontrol said the terms of the reference and legal framework of the review conducted by law firms was not shared with him. He insisted that the bank’s board failed to introspect on his resignation letter.