Atanu Chakraborty Exit: HDFC Bank Appoints Law Firms for Review, Denies Ethical Lapses

Moneylife Digital Team 24 March 2026

Economy & Nation

HDFC Bank has announced a review of the resignation of its former part-time chairman and independent director Atanu Chakraborty, appointing external law firms to examine the circumstances surrounding his exit, even as the lender clarified that no governance lapses were flagged in his resignation letter.

In a regulatory filing, the Bank says its board, at a meeting held on 23 March 2026, approved the appointment of domestic and international law firms to conduct an independent review of Mr Chakraborty’s resignation. The move, it says, is aimed at reinforcing its governance standards and ensuring transparency.

The development follows Mr Chakraborty’s resignation on 18 March 2026 with immediate effect. While his letter had referred to certain developments within the Bank over the past two years that were 'not in congruence' with his personal values and ethics, HDFC Bank clarified that he did not point to any specific practices or incidents that were inconsistent with his values.

The Bank described the decision to appoint external reviewers as a proactive step, adding that the law firms have been tasked with submitting their report within a reasonable timeframe.

Following Mr Chakraborty’s exit, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) approved the appointment of Keki Mistry as interim part-time chairman for three months beginning 19 March 2026. The central bank also noted that HDFC Bank remains a systemically important institution with sound financials, adequate liquidity and no material governance concerns on record.

Separately, HDFC Bank issued a clarification regarding reports about the termination of employment of three employees, including senior executives, in connection with the alleged mis-selling of high-risk AT1 bonds to non-resident Indian clients through its overseas operations.

The Bank says the action followed an internal investigation initiated after a decision notice from the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) concerning its branch in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). Based on the findings, the Bank’s governance, nomination and remuneration committee directed staff accountability actions which included the removal of the employees from service.

HDFC Bank emphasised that the individuals concerned are not part of senior management under the applicable disclosure norms and that the matter did not have any material impact on the Bank. It also clarified that there are currently no regulatory or legal proceedings initiated against these employees who retain the right to appeal the decision before the board.

The lender further stated that the information related to the employee action is not required to be disclosed to stock exchanges under the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, and added that recent media reports on the issue did not explain movements in its share price.

Shares of HDFC Bank saw volatility in recent sessions, declining sharply following the resignation announcement before recovering in subsequent trade.

The developments come at a time when HDFC Bank is navigating post-merger integration and heightened regulatory scrutiny, with the latest measures indicating a focus on strengthening governance oversight and maintaining investor confidence.

Comments

User

leonsaude20

3 months ago

“Our assessment is that there was a technical lapse in documentation and regulatory interpretation – not fraud or mis-selling.”
A critical question arises: Can Mr. Jagdishan clarify whether forgery is considered merely a “lapse” in documentation? It appears that Mr. Jagdishan may be attempting to misrepresent the sequence of events. The technical lapse, coupled with forgery, resulted in the sale of high-risk CS AT1 bonds to us unsuspecting NRI investors.
A forgery and fraud was committed by HDFC. While Indian authorities may be susceptible to influence from HDFC and other entities, Dubai’s Financial Services Authority has demonstrated integrity by halting all onboarding of new customers at HDFC DIFC Dubai. If they cannot onboard new customers and existing customers have been intimidated, it suggests that the office would be closed in the near future
We were mis-sold CS Bonds due to wrongful onboarding. This action led to significant financial loss for us who were not properly informed or protected.
The response from Indian regulators has been disappointing and frustrating. Instead of taking decisive action to assist victims of this scam, there has been a tendency to overlook the issue.
The last example is the response from the Hon. Prime Minister’s CPGRAM portal. Our complaint has been met with the directive, “Go to RBI.” Conversely, the RBI advises us to wait 30 days for HDFC’s response or claims that the proper procedure has not been followed, repeatedly deflecting responsibility. The lack of accountability persists, even at the highest levels.
As honest Indian citizens, we seek justice for this scam and request a refund of all our hard-earned money taken by HDFC.
We are confident that in our beloved India, Satyameva Jayate – Truth Alone Triumphs – still prevails, and we will succeed.

Jitendra B Parmar

3 months ago

HDFC Bank issued a clarification regarding reports about the termination of employment of three employees, including senior executives, in connection with the alleged mis-selling of high-risk AT1 bonds to non-resident Indian clients through its overseas operations.

The Bank says the action followed an internal investigation initiated after a decision notice from the Dubai Financial Services Authority (DFSA) concerning its branch in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). It indicates that this was within prior knowlwdge of the Bank Management who was waiting for Notice from DFSA ????

muscat2011.job

3 months ago

Infosys also appointed lawyer firm two times after CEO paid huge sum to CFO to keep secret and ICICI also appointed lawyer firm which gave clean chit.