mumbai, June 29 -- Former HDFC Bank chairman Atanu Chakraborty has termed the appointment of external law firms and the resulting report a "superfluous exercise", saying he chose not to speak because the bank refused to disclose the terms of reference or the legal basis for such a review. Chakraborty told Mint over the phone on Saturday that he asked the bank for the terms of reference at least 5-6 times to no avail. "I do not crave for the certificate of an external agency," he said. In March, Chakraborty, then the chairman of India's largest private-sector lender, suddenly resigned, with his 17-March letter to the board citing "certain happenings and practices within the bank" that were "not in congruence" with his personal values and ethics. He did not elaborate. Days later, he went on national television to hint that the "mis-selling" of Credit Suisse's perpetual bonds was a bone of contention between him and the bank's management. "My resignation letter did not point to any insinuation, and it should be read in its entirety. I wanted the board to introspect," said Chakraborty, who joined the HDFC Bank board in May 2021. His response comes after law firms tasked by HDFC Bank found no "basis for the statement" made by Chakraborty. "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," the bank said in a statement late on Friday evening. Law firms Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and Wadia Ghandy & Co. conducted the legal review. The bank said the terms of reference for the review defined the relevant time period as the two years preceding Chakraborty's resignation and included, among other procedures to be performed, reviewing meeting minutes and agenda papers, conducting interviews, and reviewing additional documents and information. The statement said the bank and external law firms repeatedly requested that Chakraborty speak with them as part of the legal review, but ultimately, the interview with Chakraborty did not occur. "The appointment of the law firm and the outcome is a superfluous exercise. What would they have found out from the minutes of the meeting, which are anyway seen by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI)?" he told Mint....