The label matched while the hardware did not

The model number was familiar, and the proposed package carried that model's name. Eight devices on the bench nevertheless had a hardware revision outside the package's assumptions. The retail label had survived a physical change that mattered to software. Nobody had intended to use the label as a technical approval, but our process had allowed it to become one. I had spent the beginning of my career working close to hardware and still needed that review to expose a shortcut in our own product work.

I grew up in Surat and completed electronics engineering at the fictional Velruni Engineering College in June 1997. In July I joined Torqemi Instrument Works as an embedded-software engineer. The company employed ninety-five people and recorded ₹13 crore revenue for the financial year ending March 1998. I worked in a seven-person engineering group without direct reports or delegated spending. Senior engineers owned the product approvals. My task was to understand how software behaved on the instrument in front of me, including the assumptions that a specification did not state clearly.

In June 2003 I became firmware lead. Torqemi had 210 employees and ₹46 crore revenue for the year ending March 2004. I led fourteen colleagues within ₹1.4 crore annual engineering expense, reporting to the engineering director. The role taught me to preserve distinctions between physical revisions even when the commercial name stayed the same. I completed a part-time master's in embedded systems at Qezravi Technical Institute in November 2006 while continuing to work. I also learned that a supplier's successful demonstration was only the beginning of our own acceptance responsibilities.

I joined Veznori in September 2010 as head of connected products. The retailer then had sixteen showrooms, 270 employees and ₹92 crore revenue for the year ending March 2011. My team comprised eighteen employees and four separate contractor positions within ₹3.3 crore annual operating expense. Customers used a wider range of computers and equipment than an engineering office normally kept ready. Some machines remained useful long after their original software had stopped receiving much attention. I had to understand that continuing use without making promises about support we were not equipped to provide.

Promotion to vice-president of engineering came in February 2016. Veznori had thirty-one showrooms, 550 employees and ₹242 crore revenue for the year ending March 2017. My remit grew to forty-two employees and nine contractor positions with ₹10.6 crore annual operating expense. I became responsible for comparing new product work with the less visible effort needed to maintain existing use. Preview performance on a developer's machine could be excellent while ordinary customer equipment struggled. A new online feature could also introduce a dependency into work that previously happened locally.

I became CTO in May 2021. The current company has forty-four showrooms and 860 employees, with ₹396 crore revenue and ₹31.4 crore operating profit for the year ending March 2026. I lead sixty-four employees and eighteen separate contractor positions through six leaders. My FY2026–27 authority is ₹18.2 crore operating expense plus ₹7.8 crore approved product-engineering work. The CIO retains enterprise systems. I report to Arvind Talqeshi and present to directors without a statutory seat. Mira Zervathi leads engineering quality, with qualified manufacturers retaining the relevant hardware and safety approvals.

The compatibility programme cost ₹62 lakh and delayed a pilot by seven weeks. The offline-project work required ₹48 lakh to remove an unnecessary session dependency while preserving the rights associated with the relevant files. We then funded ₹2.1 crore of preview engineering against twenty-four defined customer-device configurations. Twenty-three met the agreed benchmark and one remained unsupported. I preferred that account to a broad claim that the software was fast on every computer. The unsupported configuration belonged in the customer explanation, not only in a test report.

The supplier handover was another useful correction. We had received source for eleven components, but only eight initially built in the agreed environment. Two needed properly resolved commercial dependencies and one a missing generator version. All eleven eventually built; twenty-four of twenty-six device tests passed, with two features still deferred. The transition cost ₹94 lakh against an ₹86 lakh budget. I registered in the IICA independent directors databank in April 2026 but have not completed the assessment or claimed an exemption. Eighteen days is a provisional allowance for one outside role. I would bring practical scrutiny of engineering evidence while recognising that an external directorship requires a different discipline from leading the team that produces it.

Open to Board appointments

Languages / English · Gujarati · Hindi