From recording the amount to questioning its meaning

Mandate

Explain the capital, liquidity and duration commitments behind a colocation business without substituting finance for engineering authority

Outcomes

• Separated rack occupancy from contracted IT-capacity use in the investment account
• Kept actual energy volumes distinct from a uniform-price illustration
• Reconciled eligible receivables with the specific borrowing facility
• Made premises duration and future rent visible before accepting a long customer term

Decisions in context

Since September 2020 I have led twenty-eight finance colleagues through three heads, reporting to Savitri. The company employs 152 people across two leased properties and recorded ₹42 crore revenue for FY ending March 2026. My FY 2026–27 function expense is ₹4.2 crore, with a separate ₹1.1 crore control programme. Rohan leads facilities; qualified engineering, safety, accounting and legal responsibilities remain with their owners. My work has concerned the meaning attached to capacity measures, the cash available under a specific facility and the commitments beneath a customer term. I hold no statutory directorship and no personal or employee-vehicle allocation. I would bring this experience to a board by challenging the account behind an investment or obligation, while leaving management responsible for execution. The current role continues, so any appointment would require consent and a realistic assessment of time.

Reason for the move

Current finance leadership; considering a first board appointment after further preparation

Mandate

Connect the financial account across two properties while preserving differences in contracts, capacity and operating conditions

Outcomes

• Brought property commitments into the company financial discussion
• Kept site measures attached to their definitions and reporting periods
• Supported scrutiny of customer terms without claiming legal approval

Decisions in context

The December 2014 appointment expanded my remit from one site to the finance function across two properties. Vezmoli had 116 employees and ₹29 crore revenue for FY ending March 2015. I led nineteen colleagues through three heads within ₹2.8 crore annual function expense, reporting to the CFO. Finance Director was a functional title and carried no statutory board appointment. The role made differences between properties more consequential: a similarly named measure could describe a different contract or operating condition. I worked with facilities and commercial colleagues to understand those differences before combining the financial account. It also introduced the duration of premises and customer obligations more fully into my work. The subsequent CFO appointment widened responsibility for the enterprise's explanation to its board, rather than turn me into the authority for technical design or legal interpretation.

Reason for the move

Promoted to Chief Financial Officer

Mandate

Connect site records with the financial consequences of customer and premises commitments

Outcomes

• Distinguished equipment ownership from the operator's infrastructure obligations
• Examined site costs alongside the customer agreements they supported
• Escalated investment assumptions requiring facilities or legal review

Decisions in context

I joined Vezmoli in June 2008 as site financial controller. The company then operated one leased property with seventy-eight employees and ₹17 crore revenue for FY ending March 2009. Ten colleagues worked through two leads within ₹1.3 crore annual function expense. Customers owned their equipment and workloads; our business supplied the premises and supported infrastructure. Learning that boundary was essential. I could examine the financial consequences of an operating commitment without claiming to measure the usefulness of a customer's computing work. I also learned to ask which conditions a forecast assumed would continue and who could actually confirm them. Investment approvals, engineering decisions and legal review sat elsewhere. The company-wide role that followed required the same attention across more than one property, where a common reporting format could easily hide different commercial foundations.

Reason for the move

Promoted to company-wide finance responsibility

Mandate

Prepare plans that distinguish contracted work, expected demand and the resources required to deliver each

Outcomes

• Kept forecast income separate from agreed customer commitments
• Made the timing of proposed expense visible in operating discussions
• Learned to explain assumptions without presenting them as accomplished results

Decisions in context

From January 2002 I led twelve colleagues through two heads within ₹88 lakh annual function expense. Dezqori employed 142 people and reported ₹29 crore revenue for FY ending March 2003. Our planning work depended on distinguishing contracted work from prospective demand and understanding when the related costs would arise. I learned that a sensible commercial ambition can still be supported by an incomplete financial explanation. The task was to examine assumptions with the people proposing the work, rather than make finance the owner of every operating judgement. I also became more careful about the status of a number as it moved from an initial scenario into a formal paper. Site finance at Vezmoli offered a different setting in which those questions met physical premises, infrastructure and continuing customer obligations. I moved because I wanted to understand that relationship in greater depth.

Reason for the move

Moved into site finance at Vezmoli

Mandate

Maintain authorised financial records and reconcile the documents supporting them

Outcomes

• Learned to separate an invoice, an expected receipt and cash available
• Reconciled records under supervision without authorising commercial commitments
• Developed questions about what the underlying agreement actually supported

Decisions in context

After completing commerce in June 1994, I joined Dezqori the following month. The company had sixty-four employees and ₹10 crore revenue for FY ending March 1995. I was a contributor in a six-person accounts group, with no reports or spending authority. My work involved maintaining records and reconciling the documents that supported them under supervision. I began to recognise that an invoice, a promised payment and available cash were different parts of an account. The distinction was ordinary but consequential. It taught me to ask what a figure represented before relying on it to support another commitment. Planning later gave me a wider role in explaining expectations and timing. I did not leave the earlier lesson behind: a financial statement should preserve the character of the underlying evidence, even when a more convenient label would make the conversation shorter.

Reason for the move

Promoted into financial planning