My contribution to a board
I would help a board understand when a financial summary has moved beyond the question its evidence can answer. A stock count can establish what is present without establishing ownership or borrowing capacity. Adjusted acquisition earnings can describe the seller's view while omitting costs the buyer must continue paying. An interest quote can look attractive before the dates of cash obligations are placed beside it. I have had to correct or qualify each kind of account in executive work. My contribution in oversight would be to ask management for the relevant rights, costs and timing before directors settle on a recommendation. I would not redo the controller's schedules or negotiate with the lender from a board seat. I would look for the consequential distinction, ask who has assessed it and help the board understand the choice that follows. I would also acknowledge where my own review missed the issue, as it did when a reconciled stock total entered a borrowing pack without a sufficiently clear ownership account.
Judgement in practice
01Correcting the financing meaning of a stock schedule
The preliminary ₹42 crore stock account included ₹11.8 crore of supplier-owned consigned books. After ₹29 lakh of review, ₹30.2 crore remained identified as company-owned stock, still subject to lender assessment rather than automatically eligible security. Our proposed facility request moved from ₹18 crore to ₹11 crore after the wider funding review, and the lender approved ₹10.5 crore on its own terms. I would use that experience to ask a board what a resource figure actually permits the company to do. The five-week delay and smaller funding envelope were real consequences, not evidence that the correction was costless. Directors should understand those consequences and the remaining conditions while leaving legal assessment and lending decisions with their proper owners. I would be especially alert when a number has already gained confidence through reconciliation, because the next reader may assume the earlier work established a right or capacity that was never examined.
02Keeping my own shareholder receipt inside the distribution discussion
The proposed ₹4.8 crore payout implied ₹2.88 lakh gross for my 0.6% holding, while the approved ₹1.8 crore distribution implied ₹1.08 lakh. I disclosed both when presenting the case for retaining ₹3 crore for planned liquidity. I was an executive presenter without a vote, and the decision went through the appropriate review and approval process. On another board I would ask for the interests around a recommendation to be intelligible in practical terms, rather than rely only on a general statement that somebody holds shares. A lower immediate receipt does not remove a continuing economic interest. The board also needs to distinguish the ability to distribute under applicable requirements from the commercial judgement about the amount and timing. I would want the retained funds followed through the subsequent plan, so a specific purpose does not become an indefinite assumption that finance should keep cash without explaining its use.
My first year on a board
I would first learn the company's financial language and the operating arrangements behind it. With the chair and relevant committee chair, I would review how inventory, acquisition proposals and liquidity forecasts reach directors, then meet management and the appropriate assurance providers through the agreed induction. I would ask where estimates or rights change meaning between an operating schedule and a board paper. The purpose would be to understand the business and improve the questions I can contribute, not impose Lunqeri's practices on a different model. I would spend time on the collective responsibilities of directors and committee procedures because finance leadership alone does not supply that experience. In early meetings I would make a small number of well-grounded interventions and check whether they clarified the choice. At the year's end I would seek feedback on whether I had helped the board see a material distinction while respecting management's ownership of the detailed analysis and execution.
Conflicts and their management
My employment and 0.6% direct shareholding need disclosure, along with relevant links through Lunqeri's publishers, stationery suppliers, franchise relationships, lenders and employee owners. A proposed board could encounter those interests even if it sells different products. I would review the circumstances before receiving confidential plans and obtain guidance on whether any conflict can be managed without repeated exclusion from the work of the board. I would not use unpublished lending terms, acquisition negotiations or shareholder discussions to advise another company. Time must be considered with the same candour: reporting periods, retail seasons and an unexpected funding issue can create competing demands. Twenty-four days is a starting allowance that needs to be tested against actual preparation, meetings, travel and contingency work. Employer consent and an agreed approach to conflicts are necessary parts of the decision. If the proposed role relied on availability or independence that my circumstances could not support, I would step back from the opportunity.
My independence statement
My CFO employment and 0.6% direct holding connect me economically to Lunqeri. Before an outside appointment, the company and its advisers would need a full account of those interests, relevant business relationships and other circumstances. Applicable Companies Act independence conditions, SEBI LODR requirements where relevant, committee eligibility and directorship limits need company-specific review. My current financial role and databank entry do not establish independence from any proposed company.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Lunqeri Learning Stores
Full-board financial and funding reviews; executive presenter without a vote
May 2020–Present
Presents inventory financing, acquisition earnings, treasury and distribution recommendations through the CEO; no statutory appointment or committee chairmanship.