Chief Financial Officer / India
Three totals that called for different actions
- Finance colleagues
- 22
- Three managers; ₹4.6 crore annual function expense
- Company revenue
- ₹91 crore
- FY 2025–26;240 employees in March 2026
- Finance experience
- 30 years
- Equipment-service accounts to home-care rental CFO
Decisions & consequences
01Taking refundable deposits out of the discretionary spending discussion
In 2022 our management cash summary showed ₹4.8 crore in available bank balances while a ₹2.8 crore discretionary fleet purchase was being considered. The balances included ₹1.6 crore of refundable customer deposits. We also had ₹1.1 crore of other scheduled commitments in the immediate planning period. The proposal looked affordable when compared with the headline cash figure, but it would leave too little room if we honoured the deposit reserve policy we were proposing. The arithmetic was ₹4.8 crore less ₹1.6 crore less ₹1.1 crore: ₹2.1 crore for that discretionary choice.
Salim Nalqavi favoured the purchase to meet enquiries already reaching the service team. I had approved the earlier summary. Deposit obligations appeared in supporting schedules, but the headline invited a decision before the reader reached them. With treasury, customer accounts and service colleagues, I rebuilt the management view around the expected use of the money. We reconciled deposit records and agreed an internal reserve policy with the appropriate approvals. The policy was a company funding choice; we did not describe the money as universally subject to a statutory trust or assume that every deposit would be refunded on the same date. Contractual questions remained with qualified advisers.
We deferred the ₹2.8 crore purchase and asked operations to prioritise the equipment most needed within a revised funding plan. The exercise and process changes cost ₹14 lakh over six weeks. Deferral did not create a ₹2.8 crore saving, and the reserve did not remove operating risk. We still had to manage refund timing, existing commitments and the consequences of a slower expansion. The revised paper showed those costs instead of describing caution as a free improvement.
The lasting change was to put the refund obligation beside the cash figure at the point of decision. A finance manager now owns the reconciliation with customer accounts, and the forecast records why a reserve changes. I would make that distinction before recommending expansion, rather than rely on directors to discover it in a separate schedule. Cash held by the company can be real without all of it being sensible to commit to the next purchase.
Restoring the initial funding requirement in a replacement proposal
A 2024 replacement proposal combined a ₹10 crore supplier payment at purchase with a forecast ₹2 crore disposal receipt at the end of year five. The first paper called the programme an ₹8 crore net commitment. That description might have served as one undiscounted life-cycle comparison if clearly labelled, but it was being used in the immediate funding discussion. No purchaser had committed to the later disposal price. The company still needed to pay ₹10 crore when acquiring the equipment, and the eventual receipt could be lower or arrive later.
I had accepted the summary because the model contained the separate lines. I withdrew the recommendation in that form and worked with service and treasury colleagues on a dated funding schedule. We retained the possible disposal value as a scenario, including a zero-receipt case, rather than pretending the residual estimate had no relevance at all. We also separated the economic comparison from statutory accounting judgements, which required their own qualified review. The case was about the decision paper and funding requirement, not an instruction to apply a particular accounting classification to every rental fleet.
Mona Ternuvi argued that phasing could prolong the service burden of the retained fleet. We included her estimate and the operating limits in the revised paper. The board chose an initial ₹6 crore tranche and deferred the remaining ₹4 crore pending a further demand and funding review. Technical and service owners decided which equipment could be retained or replaced; finance did not certify continued suitability. Revising the proposal and negotiating the phased purchase cost ₹18 lakh over eight weeks. The first tranche was a smaller initial commitment, not proof that the full programme would cost less. The deferred portion remained visible, together with potential service expense and the risk of less favourable later purchase terms.
We now require a proposal to show its initial funding separately from future rental receipts and disposal assumptions. The same programme can look worthwhile over its life and still be unaffordable on the proposed payment dates. I want that tension to be discussed before approval. The corrected paper let directors choose a smaller first step with its limitations stated, rather than approve an apparently net amount that did not correspond to the cash the supplier required.
Correcting the account before escalating the collection demand
In 2025 a collections report labelled ₹2.4 crore as overdue and proposed a common escalation across the listed accounts. Service colleagues challenged a sample because some equipment had already been collected. Our review found ₹60 lakh of bills for periods after verified collection that required authorised correction, and ₹50 lakh covered by agreed instalment schedules. The remaining ₹1.3 crore required ordinary account-level review and follow-up. The categories added to the original total, but they did not justify the same action or imply that the remaining amount would all be recovered.
I paused the proposed common escalation and asked customer accounts and service teams to reconcile the relevant events and agreements. Mona Ternuvi supported the service review. We retained the original billing record, documented the evidence and processed corrections through the approved finance route. Instalment balances stayed visible as amounts still owed under their agreed schedules; they were not counted as cash received. We also avoided assuming that a customer's disagreement alone justified a credit. Each correction needed evidence and the appropriate approval.
The review and workflow repair cost ₹21 lakh over nine weeks. Collection scripts and reports were changed so staff could distinguish a bill needing correction from an agreed future payment and another due account. The work did not produce an immediate ₹1.1 crore cash recovery. Part of the original number should not have been pursued in that form, and part remained payable over time. We kept the remaining ₹1.3 crore under follow-up without publishing an invented recovery percentage or declaring every customer solvent.
I had relied on the ageing total before asking whether its underlying events were current. That was a finance leadership error, even though the service records sat elsewhere. The repair gave named owners responsibility for the handover from collection to final rental account. A future report must explain which action its categories support. For me, the case linked financial discipline with customer treatment: a firm can pursue what is properly due while admitting that some demands first need to be corrected.