Chief Financial Officer
Vezqalni Animation Works
Apr 2021 — Present
- Sector
- Commissioned animation and post-production services
- Ownership
- Founders 49%, domestic growth fund 36%, employee vehicle 15%; no personal equity or vehicle allocation
- Company scale
- FY2025–26 revenue ₹134 crore:₹92 crore animation and ₹42 crore finishing
- Employees
- 310 enterprise employees; twenty-eight in finance
- Geography
- Bhubaneswar finance and production headquarters
- Reporting to
- Chief Executive Nandita Zevqorli
- Team
- Twenty-eight colleagues through four finance heads
- Financial scope
- ₹4.8 crore annual function expense and separate ₹1.6 crore systems programme
Mandate
Make production obligations visible in financial decisions before another commitment is approved
Outcomes
- Separated advance-funded delivery outflows from a discretionary spending proposal
- Withdrew a sourcing saving claim that included retained costs
- Connected financial forecasts with accountable production estimates
Decisions in context
Four finance heads coordinate twenty-eight colleagues. Nandita receives my executive reports, and Iqbal’s production forecasts inform the commitments we examine. The ₹4.8 crore expense account and ₹1.6 crore systems programme have distinct scopes. Customer advances required us to reconsider what a bank balance could responsibly support; the outsourcing comparison required a different distinction between allocated and avoidable costs. Neither review authorised finance to take creative or contractual decisions away from their owners. I present to directors as an executive invitee and hold no statutory seat. The responsibility is to help management understand the obligation behind a financial proposition before the enterprise acts on it. A first outside appointment would need governance preparation and an assessment of interests and capacity. My finance title alone cannot supply the collective judgement or eligibility required for that role.
Reason for the move
Current finance leadership; considering a suitably prepared outside-board contribution
Concurrent appointment
Finance employment without a statutory board appointment
Financial Controller
Vezqalni Animation Works
Apr 2016 — Mar 2021
- Sector
- Financial control for commissioned animation and finishing
- Ownership
- Founder-led private enterprise with a growth-capital minority
- Company scale
- Company revenue ₹87 crore in the appointment’s closing year
- Employees
- 231 company employees at period end
- Geography
- Bhubaneswar financial-control office
- Reporting to
- Chief Financial Officer
- Team
- Twenty-three finance colleagues
- Financial scope
- ₹3.7 crore annual function expense; project corrections separately approved
Mandate
Keep production estimates and recorded spending in one reviewable management account
Outcomes
- Corrected the ₹1.8 crore whole-project estimate I had accepted
- Separated ₹1.1 crore incurred from ₹1.2 crore forecast remaining cost
- Rebuilt estimation review without claiming a realised margin improvement
Decisions in context
Twenty-three colleagues worked within ₹3.7 crore annual function expense. In 2019 I accepted a ₹60 lakh project contribution before central costs without adequately testing the remaining-work estimate. Iqbal showed that ₹1.2 crore remained after ₹1.1 crore had already been incurred. The corrected ₹2.3 crore cost against a ₹2.4 crore fee left ₹10 lakh before central costs. A separate ₹17 lakh, eight-week review changed how estimates were examined. I had to own the weak approval rather than present the correction as a problem discovered in somebody else’s forecast. The work strengthened the connection between production responsibility and finance’s account of expected outcomes. Becoming CFO later widened that obligation across cash planning and sourcing decisions, where an apparently accurate total could again support a conclusion its underlying commitments did not justify.
Reason for the move
Promoted to CFO with enterprise finance responsibility
Concurrent appointment
Finance employment without a statutory board appointment
Production Finance Manager
Vezqalni Animation Works
Apr 2009 — Mar 2016
- Sector
- Production finance for commissioned creative services
- Ownership
- Privately held domestic animation enterprise
- Company scale
- ₹43 crore company revenue at appointment end
- Employees
- 126 company employees at period end
- Geography
- Bhubaneswar production-finance team
- Reporting to
- Financial Controller
- Team
- Eighteen production-finance colleagues
- Financial scope
- ₹2.6 crore annual function expense; production approvals outside finance delegation
Mandate
Connect the agreed production brief with a financial estimate of the remaining work
Outcomes
- Made production-stage assumptions visible in management estimates
- Separated incurred spending from forecasts of unfinished work
- Established a continuing review relationship with production owners
Decisions in context
I joined with eighteen colleagues and ₹2.6 crore annual function expense. A commissioned animation brief brought together creative interpretation, client decisions and production effort. Finance needed to understand those relationships without deciding the creative work itself. I asked production owners to describe the stages still required rather than allow a completed stage to imply that the entire commission was nearly finished. The work made forecast ownership more concrete for me. It also explains why the later estimate failure was my mistake: I already understood the distinction but did not preserve it when the project paper offered an attractive margin. The subsequent correction had to change the review conversation, not merely add a cautionary phrase. Controllership expanded the responsibility from individual production accounts to the management process through which the company relied on them.
Reason for the move
Promoted into financial controllership
Concurrent appointment
Finance employment without a statutory board appointment
- Sector
- Project-costing support for privately owned service enterprises
- Ownership
- Domestic project-accounting partnership
- Company scale
- Annual enterprise service income ₹23 crore at departure
- Employees
- 74 company employees at departure
- Geography
- Bhubaneswar costing practice
- Reporting to
- Partner responsible for project accounts
- Team
- Twelve costing colleagues
- Financial scope
- ₹1.5 crore annual function expense; no client spending authority
Mandate
Reconcile the work described by commercial and production colleagues before comparing costs
Outcomes
- Connected commercial scopes with delivery-cost assumptions
- Distinguished client approvals from the practice’s analytical support
- Made unresolved forecasts visible before a client decision
Decisions in context
Twelve colleagues worked within ₹1.5 crore annual function expense. We prepared costing support for clients whose commercial and production teams often described the same project differently. I learned to ask which account the proposed financial comparison actually used. The practice did not acquire the client’s approval authority by preparing the analysis, nor did I claim a professional qualification beyond my commerce degree. The useful contribution was making differences visible before a client relied on a total. Joining Vezqalni gave me a continuing responsibility for those estimates within one enterprise, rather than handing an analytical assignment back at completion. It also made the consequence of a weak assumption harder to separate from my own role. The later CFO cases grew from that responsibility to explain what changed when a project, a receipt or a sourcing arrangement was interpreted differently.
Reason for the move
Joined an animation enterprise for continuing production-finance ownership
Concurrent appointment
Finance employment without a statutory board appointment
- Sector
- Supervised project-account preparation and record support
- Ownership
- Regional privately owned accounting-services partnership
- Company scale
- ₹6.4 crore annual enterprise service income at period end
- Employees
- 29 company employees at period end
- Geography
- Bhubaneswar project-accounts office
- Reporting to
- Supervising Accounts Manager
- Team
- Assistant in a nine-person accounts group
- Financial scope
- Assigned record preparation without client approval or professional signing authority
Mandate
Separate the recorded transaction from the forecast a manager wants to make from it
Outcomes
- Prepared project records under supervision
- Escalated differences between work descriptions and financial records
- Learned to distinguish completed documentation from a complete decision account
Decisions in context
I joined in June 1994 after completing commerce studies in May. Nine people formed the accounts group. I prepared records and comparisons under supervision without signing professional opinions or deciding a client’s accounting treatment. The discipline was to keep a documented transaction separate from the conclusion somebody hoped to draw about future work. A complete record could still leave a forecast unsupported. I learned to bring that gap to a manager rather than fill it with a convenient assumption. Costing management later expanded the same question across whole projects, and production finance made it a continuing enterprise responsibility. That early lesson returned in the margin correction years later: my historical-spend account was orderly, but the estimate beside it needed a much more serious challenge before it could support the company’s next decision.
Reason for the move
Promoted to manage project-costing assignments
Concurrent appointment
Finance employment without a statutory board appointment
What I am looking for next
I would consider a finance mandate where production owners can challenge the financial account before a proposal becomes difficult to revise. The enterprise should want remaining work, advance-funded obligations and retained costs explained alongside the attractive headline number. I would ask how forecasts change after an operating challenge and whether directors can see the consequence without receiving an unmanageable project ledger. A first outside-board contribution requires further governance preparation and an appointment-specific review. Twenty-three proposed annual days must cover learning, preparation, meetings and exceptional demands alongside my CFO duties, with employer consent before acceptance. I would seek a chair who values scrutiny of assumptions without expecting a director to take over project costing. The contribution should help management show what an enterprise still owes after a receipt arrives or an activity moves, so a board can decide deliberately which commitment to fund and which apparently favourable comparison needs a different explanation.