Jasdeep Ruvanpal · Chief Operating Officer · India
Test the evidence while leaving execution accountable
My contribution to a board
I would help directors examine whether the operating evidence supports the conclusion management is asking them to accept. In equipment finance I have seen how an invoice, an account date or a bank receipt can be correct in isolation yet insufficient for the decision being made. My contribution would be to ask which event the record represents, how it connects to the customer's position and what remains unresolved. I would also ask whether an exception has an accountable owner with the authority needed to resolve it. I would bring practical familiarity with field work and central administration, but not claim to replace technical, legal or accounting specialists. My board exposure is as an invited executive presenter, and I have not yet carried a director's collective responsibility. I would therefore begin by understanding the business and the board's delegated authorities. A useful contribution would make the decision more reliable while leaving management responsible for running the operation and explaining its results.
Judgement in practice
01
Declining to infer a physical fact from an invoice
The equipment-identification review required us to hold 62 proposed releases even though the files contained supplier invoices. The issue was whether the invoice described the asset that had actually been inspected. I supported further checks and retained the distinction between a missing link, a changed asset and evidence of misconduct. Forty-three files eventually met the conditions to proceed, while nineteen required decisions by other functions. In a board discussion I would ask whether the evidence presented genuinely supports the proposed release or conclusion. I would not direct the field inspection from the committee table. I would also ask how management reports the consequence of a hold: a delayed proposed payment is not automatically a prevented loss, and a referral to credit is not a rejection. That discipline helps a board understand both the operating concern and the limit of the claim made about its resolution.
02
Repairing the customer effect and the source together
The interest-date review could have ended with a refund schedule or with a technology change. Either would have left part of the issue unresolved. We needed to correct the 86 affected accounts and establish that future servicing would use the appropriate disbursement event. Finance and compliance validated ₹11.8 lakh in excess charges, operations coordinated the refund and technology tested the revised mapping against bank evidence. My recommendation accepted an explicit correction rather than a quiet adjustment that avoided explaining the error. As a director, I would ask management to show the customer remedy and the control change separately, with evidence for each. I would expect the responsible specialists to determine the treatment. The board's role would be to challenge an incomplete response and satisfy itself that the identified consequences had owners, without becoming the team executing every account adjustment.
My first year on a board
I would start with the company's operating model and the points where its commitments become difficult to reverse. An induction agreed with the chair and CEO should include conversations with the people who authorise work, perform it and record its completion. I would examine a small sample of ordinary transactions and exceptions to understand what the board's reports mean, using authorised and appropriately anonymised records. I would not begin by importing Tavresh's procedures into a different business. In committee discussions, I would ask whether management distinguishes the event completed from the outcome still dependent on another party. I would also look at how unresolved issues remain visible when they cross functions or reporting periods. By the end of the first year I would want feedback on whether my questions had improved the board's understanding of execution risk. A director who continually gives managers operational instructions may feel useful while weakening accountability; I would work to avoid that pattern from the beginning.
Conflicts and their management
Tavresh deals with equipment suppliers, service providers, investors and borrowers whose relationships could overlap with a prospective board opportunity. I would disclose relevant connections before discussing acceptance and revisit the position as the business changes. A company that appears to operate in another sector may still be an important borrower or supplier, so a name-only comparison would be insufficient. I would not share credit files, equipment valuations, account data or confidential operating weaknesses from my employer. Nor would I use another board's information to influence a financing or supplier decision at Tavresh. The chair and company secretary would need to consider whether a particular conflict could be managed or would exclude me from too much of the work. My executive responsibilities also constrain availability. The twenty-day estimate includes preparation and normal committee work, but I would need to understand likely additional demands and obtain employer consent rather than assume every exceptional event could be absorbed.
My independence statement
I remain an executive employee of Tavresh. Any external seat would require disclosure and assessment of my employment, financial interests and personal or commercial relationships. Completion of a learning or assessment requirement does not establish independence from the company considering an appointment.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Tavresh Equipment Finance
Board risk committee
April 2021–present
Present operating exceptions, customer corrections and custody matters by invitation; hold neither a directorship nor committee membership.
Registered in the IICA Independent Directors' Databank in September 2025 and passed its proficiency assessment in January 2026. This fictional preparation record is separate from the legal and company-specific assessment of an appointment.
Databank learning and proficiency-assessment preparation
Reviews of risk-committee papers with the company secretary
Practice framing an operating concern as a question for collective oversight