The contempt ruling caps a lengthy business dispute between Robert Swift and defendants Ramesh Pandey and Bhuwan Pandey over control of Xechem (India) Pvt. Ltd., a chemical company. The case began in 2013 when Swift filed claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit against the Pandey defendants, seeking ownership rights in the Indian entity. After a 2022 bench trial where Swift lost on the merits, the parties reached a partial settlement under which the Pandey defendants agreed to transfer 'any and all rights and interests they have' in Xechem India to Swift.
Judge Martinotti found clear evidence of contempt, writing that 'the Pandey Defendants have persisted in their decision to defy the Court's judgment' despite repeated warnings. The court noted that Swift and the defendants' own attorneys 'have both attested that despite the "best efforts" of the attorneys to get the Pandey Defendants to comply, they have been met with complete silence.' The judge emphasized that 'a single, incomplete submission years after the fact does not satisfy' the obligation to 'effectuate the prompt and efficient transfer' required by the settlement agreement.
The court delivered particularly sharp criticism of the defendants' behavior, observing that 'the Pandey Defendants have now sat on this obligation for over three years.' Judge Martinotti noted the 'justifiable frustration' of Swift, who has been 'unjustly stonewalled for years at this point.' The court found that Ramesh Pandey had 'fully refused to comply,' while Bhuwan Pandey provided only a defective, incomplete transfer document that was missing Ramesh's required signature.
The dispute traces back through multiple court proceedings spanning over a decade. Swift first sued in 2013, filing amended complaints as the case progressed. In 2022, after a bench trial, Judge Martinotti ruled against Swift on his substantive claims but retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement the parties had negotiated during trial proceedings. When Swift moved to enforce the settlement in 2023, the court warned it would 'take any actions deemed necessary and permissible under the law if they do not promptly comply.'
The court rejected arguments that would have excused the defendants' non-compliance. While acknowledging that Bhuwan Pandey had made 'some minimal steps' to facilitate compliance by forwarding signed documents to his brother Ramesh, Judge Martinotti found this insufficient. The judge wrote that Swift's 'preferences for how the documents be stamped or returned to him cannot form the basis for a finding of contempt' unless Swift demonstrated they were necessary to effectuate the transfer, but ultimately concluded that both defendants had violated the court's clear directive.
In a significant development, the court also granted the defendants' attorneys' motion to withdraw from representation, finding a 'complete breakdown of communication' and noting that the Pandey defendants had 'refused to pay the mounting attorney's fees' since August 2022. The attorneys told the court they had been unable to reach their clients despite 'best efforts' and could do nothing more to ensure compliance with the court's order.
Beyond the daily fines, Judge Martinotti ordered the Pandey defendants to pay 'any and all costs Swift has incurred in the process of attempting to obtain their compliance,' including attorney's fees. The court noted that while the defendants are 'over eighty years old,' they 'possess considerable assets,' making the $200 daily sanction appropriate to 'incentiviz[e] prompt compliance' without causing 'substantial financial hardship.' Swift has until May 5, 2026, to submit an itemized list of his expenses for reimbursement.