Skip to website
Nandkishor QelzvathiChief Technology Officer

Chief Technology Officer India

Prove the detail before repeating the assembly

I lead technical development for demountable office interiors, testing how parts meet, which generations can work together and whether later maintenance can be performed as promised.

Repeating a component is not the same as proving the assembly.

Open to Board appointments · Executive opportunities

Start a conversation
Portrait of Nandkishor Qelzvathi
India
Technology and methods colleagues
43
Four heads; company headcount 342
Annual technical function expense
₹8.4 crore
Separate approved development programme ₹3.1 crore
Fabrication, methods and technology
35 years
Continuous progression from June 1991

A career in chapters.

Scroll to explore →

  1. 2021-04 — present

    Chief Technology Officer

    Drezqalni Interior Systems

    Make repeatable technical promises depend on the interfaces and later tasks actually supported

  2. 2015-04 — 2021-03

    Head of Technical Methods

    Drezqalni Interior Systems

    Define which assembly configurations the technical evidence permits us to support

  3. 2007-04 — 2015-03

    Engineering Development Manager

    Drezqalni Interior Systems

    Connect component definitions with rearrangement, replacement and later access

  4. 1999-04 — 2007-03

    Design Coordination Lead

    Qavzelni Fabrication Services

    Keep component versions and fabrication constraints connected before repetition

  5. 1991-06 — 1999-03

    Engineering Trainee, later Development Engineer

    Qavzelni Fabrication Services

    Preserve the connection between an individual part and the assembly it must serve

A broader perspective.

Assembly interfaces across handed configurations / Compatibility across product generations / Maintenance access in development acceptance / Technical evidence for modular-interior commitments

Explore areas of practice ↗

Prove the detail before repeating the assembly

In 2017 I approved a connector concept on the assumption that a mirrored arrangement would preserve the fit demonstrated in the original orientation. Twenty agreed bench mock-ups challenged that assumption: twelve fitted and eight did not. We stopped release of the unsupported configurations and revised the interface. Sixteen mock-ups then met the agreed criterion, while four remained held. I had treated visual symmetry as technical equivalence, and the correction needed to begin with the claim I had accepted.

I lead technology and methods at Drezqalni Interior Systems in Kolhapur. The enterprise develops non-structural demountable office interiors, with 342 employees and ₹186 crore FY2025–26 revenue. Four heads coordinate forty-three technical colleagues within ₹8.4 crore annual function expense and a distinct ₹3.1 crore approved development programme. I report to CEO Renu Zeqvalthi and work with practice head Joseph Qavzerli. My beneficial holding is 0.06%, included within the employee allocation, and I have no statutory directorship. Project design, installation and safety approvals remain with their qualified owners.

Later work examined replacement requests spanning different product generations and maintenance tasks that looked accessible in a component view but required unplanned disturbance of adjacent panels. Those reviews made us narrow some promises and change others before presenting them as supported. A first outside-board contribution would require unfinished governance preparation and appointment-specific assessment. Twenty-three proposed annual days need to be tested against executive work and the actual board calendar. I could help colleagues ask which detail makes a modular proposition repeatable in practice: the interface that must fit, the version that must match and the route by which the item can later be serviced. A repeatable design earns its value when those conditions remain true beyond the first convincing demonstration.

Mirrored configurations withheld when fit was not established

Twenty bench mock-ups moved from twelve supported configurations to sixteen after revision; four remained held.

Replacement requests checked against product generation

Thirty-seven of forty-five reviewed requests had a supported route after examination; eight remained unresolved.

Maintenance access tested as a complete task

Twenty-two of twenty-four agreed scenarios met the service-access criterion after redesign; two remained outside release.

Technical development with explicit project boundaries

Assembly evidence supports a defined claim without becoming a blanket building, installation or safety certificate.

Current focus

Interfaces, replacement compatibility and maintainable interior systems

Conversations I welcome

Technical leadership and a prepared first outside-board contribution

The leadership record

Trusted with consequential decisions.

Formation

  • Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical EngineeringTevqazni Engineering College · 1991
Nandkishor narrowed a connector claim he had supported when the alternative configurations did not fit. He made the remaining boundary part of the commercial decision.
Renu ZeqvalthiFictional CEO, Drezqalni Interior Systems
The full record ↗

Contact

Technical leadership and a prepared first outside-board contribution

  • Board appointments
  • Executive opportunities