<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Juris Eagle insights: Projects and land</title><description>Notes on Indian law filed under Projects and land, published by Juris Eagle.</description><link>https://juriseagle.com/insights/practice/projects-and-land</link><language>en-in</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2026 12:40:42 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://juriseagle.com/insights/practice/projects-and-land/rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><docs>https://juriseagle.com/disclaimer</docs><item><title>A generator&apos;s change in law claim runs on three weeks&apos; notice, a sixty day check by the Commission and an appeal within forty-five days</title><link>https://juriseagle.com/insights/change-in-law-claim-under-a-power-purchase-agreement</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://juriseagle.com/insights/change-in-law-claim-under-a-power-purchase-agreement</guid><description>A generator that sells power under a power purchase agreement (PPA) and bears a higher cost after a change in law claims compensation under the agreement and, since 22 October 2021, under the Electricity (Timely Recovery of Costs due to Change in Law) Rules, 2021 (the Rules), which restore it to its earlier position. It gives three weeks&apos; notice and files its documents with the Appropriate Commission, which has sixty days to verify and adjust the tariff. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) hears the claim of a generator owned by the Central Government, or with a composite scheme in more than one State, under section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and a State Commission any other claim under section 86; appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) within forty-five days and then to the Supreme Court within sixty days.</description><pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Adv. Harsha Swaroop P</dc:creator><category>Projects</category><category>projects-and-land</category><category>contracts-and-procurement</category></item><item><title>A mining lease passes to a buyer under section 12A with State approval and no transfer charge, while royalty, District Mineral Foundation, Trust and premium payments continue</title><link>https://juriseagle.com/insights/transferring-a-mining-lease-after-the-mmdr-amendments-what-passes-and-what-it-costs</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://juriseagle.com/insights/transferring-a-mining-lease-after-the-mmdr-amendments-what-passes-and-what-it-costs</guid><description>A mining lease in India goes to a person selected under section 10(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act): by auction under section 10B for a notified mineral such as iron ore, or by the routes in sections 10BA, 11, 11A, 11B and 11D, a reservation under section 17A or the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015. It runs for fifty years under section 8A and passes to a buyer under section 12A with the previous approval of the State Government, taken to have no objection if it conveys no decision in ninety days, and with no transfer charge since 28 March 2021. The payments continue: royalty or dead rent, whichever is greater, ten per cent of royalty to the District Mineral Foundation (DMF) for a lease granted on or after 12 January 2015, three per cent to the National Mineral Exploration and Development Trust (NMEDT) since 1 September 2025, and the auction premium. The lease lapses under section 4A(4) after two years without production and dispatch, and a refusal goes in revision to the Central Government under section 30 of the Act and rules 35 and 36 of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016.</description><pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Adv. Harsha Swaroop P</dc:creator><category>Projects</category><category>projects-and-land</category><category>contracts-and-procurement</category></item><item><title>Delay and variation claims under an Indian construction contract turn on section 55, the section 74 ceiling and a narrow challenge under section 34</title><link>https://juriseagle.com/insights/epc-contract-delay-and-variation-claims</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://juriseagle.com/insights/epc-contract-delay-and-variation-claims</guid><description>An engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract in India carries its delay and variation claims through the Indian Contract Act, 1872: section 55 decides whether late completion lets the owner end the contract or only claim compensation, and section 74 caps liquidated damages at the sum named, which on the Supreme Court&apos;s reading in Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority (9 January 2015) is payable in full only as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 gives three months, and at most thirty days more, to challenge an award, and section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 bars a court from granting an injunction that would delay a listed infrastructure project.</description><pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Adv. Harsha Swaroop P</dc:creator><category>Contracts and procurement</category><category>contracts-and-procurement</category><category>projects-and-land</category></item><item><title>Under the SHANTI Act, private Indian companies may hold nuclear power licences, with operator liability capped by reactor size, from a date yet to be notified</title><link>https://juriseagle.com/insights/shanti-act-private-nuclear-licences-and-liability</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://juriseagle.com/insights/shanti-act-private-nuclear-licences-and-liability</guid><description>The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, 2025 (Act No. 39 of 2025), which received assent on 20 December 2025 and was published in the Gazette of India on 21 December 2025, repeals the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, and, once in force, makes any company incorporated in India, alone or in a joint venture, eligible for a licence to build, own, operate and decommission a nuclear power plant, with no equity ceiling in the text. The operator&apos;s liability for nuclear damage is capped by reactor size at INR 100 crore to INR 3,000 crore, the Act gives the operator a right of recourse only where a written contract provides it or the incident was intentionally caused by an individual, and it comes into force only on a date the Central Government notifies, a notification we have not found.</description><pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Dr. Vijay Mishra</dc:creator><category>Projects</category><category>projects-and-land</category><category>contracts-and-procurement</category><category>transaction-advisory</category></item><item><title>The scheme that replaced FAME pays once a vehicle is sold, and the battery rules charge for it again two years later</title><link>https://juriseagle.com/insights/pm-e-drive-and-the-battery-rules</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://juriseagle.com/insights/pm-e-drive-and-the-battery-rules</guid><description>PM E-DRIVE, the scheme that followed FAME-II and subsumed EMPS-2024, now runs to 31 March 2028 on an outlay raised to INR 11,900 crore, and the last date for a claim under any component is 31 December 2027. The same electric two-wheeler that earns a demand incentive also creates an extended producer responsibility liability under the Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022, counted against sales made two financial years earlier. For an electric two-wheeler maker the two clocks cross in 2026-27, the first year its battery collection target bites, and again in 2027-28, when recycled content in new batteries becomes mandatory.</description><pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Dr. Vijay Mishra</dc:creator><category>Manufacturing and incentives</category><category>contracts-and-procurement</category><category>boardroom-and-corporate</category><category>projects-and-land</category></item><item><title>Semicon 2.0: the gates are revenue, ownership and technology you already hold, not the capital you propose to spend</title><link>https://juriseagle.com/insights/semicon-2-0-eligibility-2026</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://juriseagle.com/insights/semicon-2-0-eligibility-2026</guid><description>Semicon 2.0, notified on 31 August 2026, cut fiscal support for a silicon wafer fab to 40 per cent of eligible capital expenditure from the up to 50 per cent the first programme carried. The percentage is the least of it. An applicant for that pillar must already show minimum capital investment of INR 20,000 crore, revenue of INR 7,500 crore in any of the three financial years before it applies, and production grade technology it owns or licenses. The design pillar adds a condition on who owns and controls the applicant.</description><pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Dr. Vijay Mishra</dc:creator><category>Manufacturing and incentives</category><category>transaction-advisory</category><category>ip-and-licensing</category><category>projects-and-land</category></item><item><title>India&apos;s carbon market now sets plant-level targets, and a shortfall left uncovered costs twice what a certificate trades for</title><link>https://juriseagle.com/insights/carbon-credit-targets-and-the-shortfall</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://juriseagle.com/insights/carbon-credit-targets-and-the-shortfall</guid><description>From 8 October 2025, the Greenhouse Gases Emission Intensity Target Rules, 2025 have given 282 named plants in aluminium, cement, chlor-alkali and pulp and paper a binding emission intensity target for 2025-26 and 2026-27. An amendment in force from 13 January 2026 added 208 more in secondary aluminium, refining, petrochemicals and textiles. A plant that misses its target has to buy and surrender carbon credit certificates for the gap, and a shortfall left uncovered draws environmental compensation at twice the average traded price.</description><pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Adv. Harsha Swaroop P</dc:creator><category>Projects</category><category>projects-and-land</category><category>contracts-and-procurement</category></item><item><title>Delay under RERA runs from the date in the agreement for sale, not from the date the project was registered</title><link>https://juriseagle.com/insights/rera-delay-runs-from-the-agreement-date</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://juriseagle.com/insights/rera-delay-runs-from-the-agreement-date</guid><description>Section 18(1)(a) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 fixes liability by reference to the terms of the agreement for sale and the date specified in it. The completion date a promoter declares to the authority at registration, and any extension of that registration, belong to a different obligation and do not move the date from which interest for delay is counted. Two decisions of the Bombay High Court in 2026 applied that distinction, and both ran the clock from the agreement.</description><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Adv. Harsha Swaroop P</dc:creator><category>Real estate and RERA</category><category>rera-and-real-estate</category><category>projects-and-land</category></item><copyright>2024 Juris Eagle. This website is intended solely for informational purposes and does not constitute solicitation or advertisement under applicable Bar Council regulations. The transmission or receipt of information through this platform does not create an advocate-client relationship. Legal advice is rendered only upon formal written engagement with the firm.</copyright></channel></rss>