My contribution to a board
I would help directors examine whether the asset account and the service account describe the same enterprise. A high utilisation figure may conceal an unfunded replacement promise. A collection date may be convenient for operations without settling the agreed rental end. A repair estimate may establish necessary work without establishing who should pay. My experience connects those distinctions with actual operating choices, including costs accepted and claims withdrawn. I would use it to question the completeness of management's explanation rather than to prescribe each depot process. I have presented to directors but have no statutory appointment, so the move requires learning how to contribute to shared oversight. Finance, legal and technical expertise would remain essential around the table. The value I offer is an operating view of whether the capital and commercial plan can be carried out on the terms the company has chosen.
Judgement in practice
01Accepting a weaker utilisation figure to support a defined obligation
The 48-unit reserve required ₹9.6 crore capital and reduced the proportion of the fleet in ordinary placements. I supported it after considering alternatives, but retained the nineteen unsuccessful cases among 62 later replacement callouts. At board level, I would ask whether management can connect the investment with an explained service requirement and report results without treating purchase as completion. Directors should see both the capital cost and the conditions stock alone cannot solve. The account should not imply that every timely dispatch prevented a measurable customer loss. My contribution would be to examine the evidence for the capability and the criteria for revising the reserve, while management retains dispatch and technical decisions. This is a capital-and-service judgement, not a general preference for holding more equipment whenever uncertainty is uncomfortable.
02Separating an internal event from the contractual charging question
A review of 73 return notices showed 49 supported off-hire events before physical collection and 24 requiring further work. We corrected ₹16.4 lakh for the supported group after the relevant terms and records were assessed. The board lesson is to ask whether a convenient operating milestone has acquired an unsupported commercial meaning. I would not advise directors to adjudicate each customer notice. I would ask how management ensures that the billing event follows the agreement and how its own collection delay is reported. The unresolved group must remain visible, and the correction must not be described as a universal rule that notice alone ends every obligation. The case demonstrates a willingness to accept a less compact account and an unwelcome charge reduction when the earlier measure could not support its use.
03Declining to allocate a repair cost without sufficient evidence
The review of 37 returns supported ₹22 lakh of proposed condition charges and withdrew ₹9 lakh. Repair work could remain necessary even where the customer allocation was unsupported. I would bring that distinction into oversight of asset controls and commercial conduct. A board can ask whether management has reliable placement and service records, whether qualified assessments inform charges and whether missing evidence is being hidden by a convenient assumption about responsibility. It should also distinguish proposed amounts from collected or refunded cash. My role would be to examine the quality of the process and the incentives it creates, not to replace the professional assessment of an individual unit. The company should be able to improve its evidence without turning every disagreement into an accusation or every waiver into a claimed service achievement.
My first year on a board
I would begin with the business model: what the company owns, what it sells alongside the asset and where responsibility passes between the enterprise and the customer. Induction would include the chair's expectations, the committee structure and the financial and technical context needed to read the board papers. Site visits would be organised through the agreed process so they support understanding without creating a parallel operating instruction channel. I would examine the definitions behind the principal measures, including asset availability, utilisation, condition and service completion. I would also learn how management distinguishes assumptions in a capital proposal from evidence reported after implementation. Later questions would follow the obligations and actions the board had agreed to review, rather than introduce a new preferred dashboard at every meeting. I would seek feedback on whether my executive experience was helping collective judgement or drawing me too far into operational detail that properly belongs with management.
Conflicts and their management
I would disclose relevant connections through the lessor's owners, enterprise customers, equipment suppliers, service partners and financing relationships before accepting confidential material. A prospective company may intersect with those relationships even when its public activity appears different. The assessment would need qualified advice on the actual circumstances and applicable Companies Act or listing requirements, rather than a declaration based solely on my absence of a shareholding. Where recusal is proposed, I would consider whether it leaves a workable role or removes so much of the agenda that accepting the appointment would be unhelpful. I would keep customer terms, technical reports and commercial records from my executive work private. Experience can inform a board question without transferring documents the new company is not entitled to receive. Employer consent and a realistic capacity review would form part of the same decision about whether I can contribute responsibly.
My independence statement
My lack of a personal allocation or existing board seat is not a complete independence assessment. Relationships through Qevthari's founding families, institutional investor, employee vehicle, customers and suppliers require specific review against the proposed appointment.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | An operations or risk committee examining asset-service obligations after induction and fit review · A strategy or investment committee where operating evidence informs capital choices |
|---|
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 26 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Commercial equipment leasing · Asset-intensive business services · Enterprises with continuing service obligations around owned equipment
- Company type
- An asset-owning enterprise prepared to examine capital productivity alongside the service its customers actually receive
- Company stage
- Expanding a portfolio or reconsidering the operating terms attached to its asset model
The seat I am pursuing
I am seeking a first outside appointment with a specific need for operating judgement around physical assets and continuing customer service. An operations, risk or strategy committee may be relevant after induction and assessment of the board's required skills. I do not claim immediate readiness to chair a statutory committee. The fictional January 2026 databank registration and June 2026 assessment pass describe preparation, not a right to an appointment or a complete independence conclusion. My provisional twenty-six days must cover papers, induction, travel, meetings and exceptional demands alongside the COO role. I would want a chair who values clear limits and complementary expertise, including people who can challenge my preferred operating explanation. A company seeking only a familiar executive title would not give either side enough basis for a useful appointment. The fit should rest on the decisions ahead and the contribution the board actually needs.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Proficiency assessment passed
In this fictional career, IICA databank registration began in January 2026 and the proficiency assessment was passed in June 2026. No exemption is claimed. These preparation steps do not establish eligibility or independence for every appointment.
- Learn the prospective enterprise's duties, asset accounting and committee responsibilities
- Develop collective oversight beyond executive coordination of service work
- Study how the board receives assurance on physical assets and customer obligations
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Qevthari Commercial Leasing
Executive operating and asset-portfolio presentations; no statutory or committee appointment
February 2021 onward
Presents through CEO Anita Qemqavi on fleet use, service obligations, operating costs and capital proposals. Presentation experience does not confer a director vote.