The model carried a value our agreement did not

I keep a distinction between the value a business can imagine and the value it has a right to receive. That habit became sharper after a model I supported included land value our company could not realise. The site looked like a property investment in the presentation, but the proposed agreement gave us an operating right. I had allowed a familiar model to make the unfamiliar arrangement look more complete than it was.

My career began in June 1994 after commerce studies at Revqlazni Commerce College. I joined Neqvalri Commercial Services as an accounts assistant in a seven-person finance group. I prepared records and checked supporting documents under supervision, without independently deciding contract interpretation or reporting policy. The work taught me to follow a number back to the transaction it described. A clear spreadsheet was useful only if the underlying right, payment or obligation had been understood correctly.

In April 2002 I became a contract-analysis manager, leading twelve colleagues within ₹1.3 crore annual function expense. The role connected commercial agreements with management-planning accounts. I worked with qualified contractual owners to understand the event that created a payment and the conditions that could change it. Two arrangements could use the same labels while producing different economic consequences. I learned to ask for the actual mechanism before carrying an assumption from one model to another, although my later terminal-value error showed that knowing the principle was not enough.

Dalqverni Parking Estates appointed me finance-operations manager in April 2010. Eighteen colleagues worked within ₹2.5 crore annual function expense. The enterprise combined owned parking properties with sites operated under agreements, so similar daily activity could rest on different asset and contract positions. I wanted those differences visible in management reports rather than flattened into a single site count. Operational colleagues owned the service, while finance connected the evidence to the obligations and options being considered.

The financial-controller appointment in April 2016 expanded my remit to twenty-seven colleagues and ₹4.4 crore annual expense. In 2018 I supported a ₹21 crore proposed programme whose model included ₹8 crore terminal land value. Leena challenged the assumption because the proposed operating agreement did not confer ownership or a sale entitlement. I withdrew my recommendation and had the proposal rebuilt from the rights actually available. That correction did not establish a new accounting valuation; it prevented an unsupported realisation assumption from carrying the investment argument.

After that correction I changed the opening discussion for a proposal. We separated established entitlements from scenario assumptions before reviewing the calculated return. That gave contract and operating colleagues a clearer opportunity to challenge the premise, rather than ask them to dispute an apparently finished answer after the financial presentation had already made the preferred route persuasive.

Since April 2022 I have served as CFO, reporting to Kamal Zaqvelthi. Four heads lead thirty-six finance employees within ₹6.2 crore annual function expense. The company now employs 310 people and records ₹138 crore annual revenue, with ₹120 crore from parking operations and ₹18 crore from property services. Founders own 49 percent, an infrastructure investor 39 percent and an employee vehicle 12 percent. I have no personal shareholding and have not held a statutory director appointment at the company.

In 2023 we corrected a model that added a contractual payment floor to a variable amount instead of selecting the higher figure. In 2025 we revised a selected forward cash account to include the cost of continuing service for customers who had already paid. Those were different errors, but each involved letting a convenient representation obscure the mechanism behind the number. The first overstated a modelled payment; the second overstated the room for a proposed commitment. Neither could be corrected responsibly by simply choosing the more favourable result.

I would seek a finance mandate where the team is expected to explain the right or obligation before defending the model. I also want the review process to make it possible for a contract colleague to challenge the CFO’s assumption early. A potential board contribution would require learning and eligibility assessment beyond my executive presentations. I could help directors ask what must remain true for the financial argument to hold, what has not yet been established and which professional owner needs to resolve the uncertainty before the company commits.

Open to Board appointments · Executive opportunities

Languages / Hindi · English · Bengali