Roxana Verqazli · Chief Financial Officer · India
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Financial and operating-risk discussion where the board's composition and applicable requirements support the contribution · Capital-allocation oversight, subject to nomination assessment and the actual committee mandate |
I would consider a first statutory board role in an asset-intensive service company that needs the financial questions illustrated here. I do not claim immediate readiness to chair an audit committee or another statutory committee solely because I hold a CFO title. The board must assess the relevant competence, composition needs and applicable eligibility requirements. My commerce degree and operating-finance career are stated accurately; no additional professional qualification is implied. Qualified legal, accounting and technical perspectives remain necessary to a well-composed board and cannot be replaced by these illustrative cases.
The preparation record remains unfinished. I am not yet registered in the IICA databank within this fictional account, and I claim neither a completed proficiency assessment nor an exemption. Those matters, independence, relationships and time would need to be addressed before appointment. I would seek a board where the contribution is specific enough to be assessed and where collective challenge is valued more than the appearance of a familiar executive title. A useful next role would let me examine management's assumptions while accepting equivalent challenge to my own judgement. The website should make that position legible, including what has not yet been completed.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
This fictional preparation record is not yet registered in the IICA Independent Directors' Databank. No proficiency-assessment completion or exemption is claimed. Applicable preparation and appointment requirements must be checked and fulfilled for an actual role.
I could help a board examine whether the financial argument supports the decision management is requesting. A correct total may contain a one-off receipt that cannot sustain a recurring programme. A contract's prestige may distract from its specific delivery costs. An asset balance may say little about the expenditure needed for its next assignment. These questions sit at the connection between finance and operations, where a board needs management to explain the relevant conditions without taking over the work of qualified executives. My contribution would be to challenge that connection and ask what evidence would change the proposed choice.
I would bring an owned mistake into that discussion. In 2019 I accepted a spending argument that failed to retain the one-time nature of an office sale. The capital programme was revised and the review incurred expense. That experience does not make me immune to another interpretive error, but it gives the board a concrete basis for examining my judgement. I want the record to show what I approved, what others challenged and what remained unresolved after the correction. Collective oversight benefits from directors who can explain the limits of their own account rather than present every previous decision as proof of reliable foresight.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Financial planning and capital-programme review
2019
Presented the office-receipt interpretation error, revised programme and ₹16 lakh review expense as controller; no statutory directorship.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Equipment-support, repair-funding and operating-footprint discussions
September 2021–present
Presents financial matters within the executive CFO remit, retaining qualified operating, accounting and legal responsibilities.
The ₹1.8 crore damage claim included ₹65 lakh of written insurer confirmation and ₹1.15 crore still unresolved at the decision date. I would ask how management intends to fund the ₹95 lakh repair programme, including the timing of actual resources and other obligations. A submitted claim should not silently become available cash in the board's account. Qualified insurance, legal and accounting owners must assess their respective questions. The board can decide to support urgent work while retaining uncertainty about recovery; it should understand the resources committed and the consequences if the favourable assumption does not occur.
The depot proposal retained ₹54 lakh annually for two years while introducing ₹42 lakh of hub services and a one-off move. I would ask for the transition-period account and the service evidence before accepting the saving headline. The alternative might still have strategic value, but that value must support the actual higher-cost period being proposed. Oversight should allow operating colleagues to make their strongest case while ensuring that remaining obligations are visible. The useful question is whether the enterprise can explain and fund the journey, not whether finance can make a closure sound unattractive by selecting one inconvenient number.
In the first period I would learn how the enterprise brings operating evidence into its financial decisions. I would want to understand which assumptions the board sees, how management distinguishes commitments from intentions and where qualified professional judgements sit. Equipment rental gives me relevant questions, but another asset-intensive service business may allocate responsibilities differently. I would not arrive with a ready-made depot or fleet procedure and expect management to adopt it. The initial work should establish the actual business model and the material decisions for which my perspective can be useful.
With the chair's agreement, I would follow a small selection of capital and service choices through subsequent review. Did the original account retain its assumptions? Were the costs of revision visible? Had an approval been described as a completed result before execution evidence existed? I would ask for feedback on whether my questions sharpen collective judgement or drift into an executive review that belongs elsewhere. The first year should make both contribution and learning visible. It should also reveal where another director or adviser has expertise I lack, so the board's account becomes broader rather than centred on the finance background I bring.
My current CFO role creates relationships with equipment suppliers, service partners, insurers, advisers, customers and investors. Another company may share those connections without being an obvious direct competitor. I would disclose relevant relationships and support an appropriate review of the proposed appointment. No personal equity does not mean no conflict, and a modest transaction value does not automatically make a relationship immaterial. The company's circumstances and applicable requirements need to govern the assessment. Some situations may need restricted participation; others may make the role unsuitable from the outset.
The time position is also conditional. Eighteen days is a provisional annual estimate for outside work, including induction, preparation and travel rather than meetings alone. Exceptional demands and the current employer's expectations need consideration. I would not accept a board commitment on the assumption that routine financial work always leaves spare capacity. A serious enquiry should establish the contribution expected and the demands likely to accompany it. If those exceed the available capacity, declining the role is a more responsible outcome than presenting a nominal availability number that cannot support the actual duties.
I am Tevqalri's CFO, with no personal equity and no statutory directorship. Those facts do not establish independence for a proposed outside appointment. The actual company must assess relevant relationships and the Companies Act criteria, including section 149(6), together with applicable SEBI LODR provisions. Committee composition, eligibility and relevant directorship limits require their own review. Employer, customer, supplier, insurer and adviser relationships may matter even without a shareholding. Disclosure and recusal should not be presumed sufficient in every case; some relationships can make a role unsuitable. My executive financial presentations are not previous independent-director service.