Learning what a correct figure can leave unanswered

The rack count was accurate, which made the error in my interpretation harder to see. Our expansion paper showed 282 occupied positions out of 400. I had allowed 70.5% occupancy to carry more meaning than it deserved. The contracted IT-capacity account was 1.32 MW out of 2.4 MW, or 55%. A customer using a position did not necessarily commit the same amount of power as the next customer. Rohan Qorvemi asked which constraint the proposed investment was intended to solve. I had supplied a familiar percentage without making the financial question precise enough.

I grew up in a Muslim family in Srinagar and completed commerce at the fictional Lemzathi Commerce College in June 1994. The following month I joined Dezqori Business Services as an accounts assistant. It had 64 employees and ₹10 crore revenue for FY ending March 1995. I worked in a six-person accounts group without reports or spending authority. My early work involved reconciling invoices, receipts and approved records. I learned that a figure could be correct in its own ledger and still be used to support a claim that required different evidence.

In January 2002 I became financial-planning lead. Dezqori employed 142 people and reported ₹29 crore revenue for FY ending March 2003. Twelve colleagues worked through two heads within ₹88 lakh annual function expense. Planning widened the question from what had been recorded to what the company was preparing to commit. I had to distinguish a customer's stated intention from an agreed transaction and an expense budget from money immediately available. The work made me interested in service businesses where physical capacity, contracts and financial timing meet.

I joined Vezmoli as site controller in June 2008. The company operated from one leased property, employed 78 people and recorded ₹17 crore revenue for FY ending March 2009. Ten finance colleagues worked through two leads within ₹1.3 crore annual expense. The site made financial assumptions tangible. A rack position, a power commitment and an actual energy reading described different aspects of the same customer relationship. Facilities colleagues could explain those distinctions more clearly than a generic occupancy line in a management report. I learned to work with their account before deciding what the financial model should imply.

The finance-director appointment followed in December 2014. Vezmoli then used two leased properties, had 116 employees and ₹29 crore revenue for FY ending March 2015. Nineteen finance colleagues worked through three heads within ₹2.8 crore annual expense. The title was a functional appointment, not a statutory directorship. My remit connected site control, planning and treasury with company reporting. The premises arrangements also became more important: a customer commitment could extend beyond the period of access already secured for the building, creating a question that the revenue forecast alone did not answer.

I became CFO in September 2020. Today 28 finance colleagues work through three heads with ₹4.2 crore FY 2026–27 function expense and a separate ₹1.1 crore control programme. The company has 152 employees and ₹42 crore FY 26 revenue. Founders own 44%, the regional fund 41% and an employee vehicle 15%; I have no personal holding or vehicle allocation. Savitri Zemqathi leads the enterprise, and Rohan leads facilities. Qualified engineering, safety, legal and accounting owners retain their decisions. I present financial matters to the board as an executive invitee, without a statutory seat.

The capacity review cost ₹41 lakh. It supported a board choice of ₹8.6 crore defined improvements while a separate ₹28 crore new-hall proposal was deferred. We did not turn the difference between the proposals into a saving or claim that the lower contracted-power percentage established unlimited room for every customer. The actual physical and contractual constraints remained for the responsible owners to examine. My correction was to make the dimensions visible before asking the board to choose an investment.

The energy review challenged another convenient explanation. Across the stated comparable annual periods, facility energy fell from 4.8 million to 4.2 million kWh, but IT energy fell from 3.0 million to 2.4 million. PUE therefore moved from 1.60 to 1.75. Using illustrative uniform energy prices of ₹7.20 and ₹8.10 per kWh gives calculated charges of ₹3.456 crore and ₹3.402 crore. That illustration is not the actual utility account. Lower consumption, a worse ratio and a small modelled charge reduction can coexist. A ₹33 lakh review retained their different meanings without claiming a measured efficiency or emissions improvement.

We also corrected a borrowing-base account and repaid ₹80 lakh when the reviewed eligibility supported less than the amount drawn. A later premises review secured access beyond a proposed seven-year customer term through a five-year extension beginning when the existing lease ended. The extension also left exposure after that customer term. The extra access carried higher annual rent; it did not make the service risk-free. I work in Kashmiri, Urdu and English, with working Malayalam. Fictional IICA registration is recorded in August 2026, with assessment unfinished and no exemption asserted. Twenty-four days is provisional. I would bring a board the habit of asking what the number means, what it allows and which condition still stands behind it.

Open to Board appointments

Languages / Kashmiri · Urdu · English · Working Malayalam