Deeksha Veqthari · Chief Financial Officer · India
Make the financial condition useful to collective judgement
My contribution to a board
I would help directors examine what a financial amount does and does not establish about a proposed commitment. My experience includes a project cash account I supported incompletely, a distribution decision that needed fulfilment obligations visible and a funding arrangement whose receipt did not remove contractual exposure. I would bring those questions into collective oversight while learning the enterprise beyond finance. A model can clarify an alternative without choosing it on behalf of directors or replacing management's operating judgement. I would not claim technical release authority or universal accounting conclusions from a profile example. The contribution I seek is to make the relationship between money, timing and responsibility easier to assess, including which assumptions could change the choice and which intended benefits remain unproven after approval. Complementary expertise and an experienced chair would be important in developing that contribution across the whole board.
Judgement in practice
01
Asking whether a project amount covers the work needed around the equipment
I endorsed a ₹9.8 crore kiln proposal that omitted ₹1.4 crore civil work, ₹1.1 crore grid connection and ₹0.7 crore startup cash. The ₹13 crore requirement needed extra approval and the project lost nine weeks. I would help directors distinguish a supplier quotation from the enterprise funding account, while leaving accounting classification and technical assessment with qualified specialists. My own endorsement remains part of the case. The later correction did not create a saving or recover the delay. The oversight question is whether management has connected the known operating requirements with the commitment directors are being asked to approve.
02
Following the obligation that remains when invoice cash arrives early
A proposed ₹12 crore invoice pool offered ₹10.8 crore advanced and ₹1.2 crore held back before fees, while retaining recourse after thirty days overdue under its contract. We withdrew the complete-risk-transfer claim and limited the pilot to ₹6 crore face value. I would ask a board to separate cash timing from exposure and to understand what the professional reviews conclude about the actual terms. A funding receipt can be useful without removing every obligation. The held-back balance is not automatically a fee, and a limited pilot does not make the contract's conditions disappear. Those distinctions belong in the approval and subsequent monitoring account.
03
Using a clear bound before accepting a lower-rate refinancing story
A ₹24 crore fixed-rate loan had two years remaining and declining principal. The offer reduced nine per cent to 8.5% but charged ₹36 lakh. Even holding the whole balance constant, the interest benefit could not exceed ₹24 lakh over two years; amortisation reduced it further. We declined. I would help directors understand why that bound was enough for this decision without claiming a precise future saving or presenting the unspent fee as net benefit. The reasoning belongs to the stated terms. A different fee, life or material condition would require another assessment rather than a universal conclusion about refinancing.
My first year on a board
I would begin by learning how the enterprise creates value, serves customers and meets its responsibilities before applying familiar manufacturing-finance examples. During induction I would follow a small number of material decisions from their operating assumptions through the cash account and approval process. I would listen to people, technical, commercial and legal leaders as well as finance, so the questions I bring reflect the enterprise rather than only the model. I would ask the chair whether my interventions make the collective choice clearer and whether I am respecting the distinction between oversight and execution. My first year should develop judgement in areas where I have less direct experience, not merely establish a role as the person who checks arithmetic. A useful contribution would make assumptions and obligations easier to examine while helping the board understand what qualified colleagues have assessed and what remains uncertain before the enterprise commits.
Conflicts and their management
Before considering confidential board material, I would disclose my employment and relevant relationships through Zevqoshi's industrial fund, employee owners, customers, suppliers, financing counterparties and advisers. Employer consent and qualified review would address the applicable appointment, independence, committee and directorship requirements. No direct holding or existing seat does not mean there are no conflicts. Commercial terms, costing methods and financial records from my current work would remain protected. I would consider whether exclusions required by an overlap still leave room for a useful contribution to the whole board, and revisit the position when relationships change. An initial disclosure cannot anticipate every later decision. If recurring restrictions or insufficient preparation time made the role impractical, I would decline rather than assume that an interest in serving or a finance title resolved those conditions. The assessment needs to fit the actual enterprise and responsibilities being proposed.
My independence statement
I hold no direct equity and no statutory seat. My employment and relationships through Zevqoshi's industrial fund, employee owners, customers, suppliers and finance providers still require a qualified independence and conflict review for a proposed appointment.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Zevqoshi Kiln Furniture
Finance, investment and liquidity proposals presented through the CEO
February 2021 onward
Explains funding requirements and operating assumptions; holds no statutory appointment and does not claim committee membership from attendance.