Foreign owned property in Goa, (Part One)

dzibead

Yep - I'm sure you've seen the film "Local Hero"! Definitely worth a trip to the video shop if you haven't!

cyberhippie

It's my dad's fav film, brilliant!!

There was one other point I forgot to make, I'm not sure if this tranlates well to Goan coastal life but certainly in Scotland the influx of money actually saved some villages from total extinction,
The old ways of crofting and working for the laird wasn't really sustainable anymore and these villages were in real danger of dying as all the youth moved away!!

Thinking about it I think there are some paralel's with Goa!! Tourism complicates that issue though!

dzibead

I think the parallels between the crofting areas of Scotland and Ladakh are pretty strong - subsistence agriculture and a "primitive" - maybe I shouldn't even put that in quotation marks?- way of life that couldn't possibly survive into the 20th or 21st century unchanged, tourism or no. And ironically, the tourism that's replaced, even if only in part, the traditional economies of those areas is driven by the attractiveness of the very life/culture the tourism threatens. Tibet presents the same paradox. Sigh. What to do? [insert head wobble here] But tourism does present issues that are somewhat different from the "gentrification" that results from the widespread acquisition of property by affluent incomers.

cyberhippie

That such Indian statement/question is so apt in so many of life's intractable problems!! Don't you think!

Anyway I'll let others air their views now, it's bedtime!

capt_mahajan

were tony blairs remarks about wmd in iraq legal too? and no BRITISH lawyer lies, ever? and of course, there is no corruption there, is it?

if the uk is so good and india is so bad, how come you are buying property over here anyway? and everywhere else, if i believe you.

just to let you know its as easy for me to make racist comments. and this is my final rejoinder to you.

except, maybe goa is better off without the likes of you. australias loss is our gain.

Steve and June

What a fascinating debate !
I love all these people who say a person from outside India cannot own an immovable object ! that you have to live there for more than 182 days !
According to the Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 ,A corporate body can own an immovable object for the purpose of its business.
That means that as a director and sole shareholder of an Indian company we can own properyin Goa.We have not bent any rules ,laundered any money or bribed any officials.We have done things legally . Read the Act !
Anyone who doesnt like it ,its their right.
But it is also my legal right to do what i am doing !
Thanks to Goa for making us feel so welcome !!!

greenchutney

my indian passport holder retired dad wants to spend his last years in england. can he buy a one bedroom flat in say birmingham and be expected to issued a UK resident visa without any hassles ?...he can still work, he could create his own company consulting in india related matters. a one bedroom flat in birmingham seems cheaper than a flat in central bombay.

i am just curious...thanks for any help. i thought this will relevant here since there are many of you talking to lawyers and what not.

Steve and June

Hello
Your dad would proably be able to buy somewhere if he he has the money . However the residency visa is a different matter.Like us he may have to go home periodically and reapply for a tourist visa !
Good luck ! but Manchester is nicer !

capt_mahajan

or he could find a dodgy lawyer.....

greenchutney

i dont think he will get a tourist visa. you see,unlike the indian embassy, the british embassy is tough on people who are older than 60 going alone there without any dependents..they dont issue any category of visas...hmmmm

yeah edinburgh is the best but its pricer... a studio is all he wants and its so cheap in birmingham that he is telling his friends. thanks!

dzibead

And did your first post or any of your posts in this thread say that you had purchased a business property in your capacity as "director and sole shareholder of an Indian company"? No. It just asked why a person shouldn't be allowed to purchase real property, or be considered to have purchased property legally, if they had paid a lawyer, bought their furniture locally, took taxis to local restaurants, etc, etc, etc.

A number of posts here have pointed out that these factors alone wouldn't make the purchase legal, but that there's no problem with foreigners buying property in India simply because they're foreigners if they otherwise fall into some FEMA category that allows them to purchase immovable property legally. So if you actually have some status under FEMA (i.e., as other than the holder of a mere tourist visa), then why didn't you say so in the first place, instead of coming up with this snarky response now?

goangoangone

I don't understand your problem then. If you already have RBI approval, then you've nothing to worry about.
I can tell you this though: the latest advisory from the RBI is that they do not approve of companies being formed to buy residential property.
Additonally, if you have a company, you must have a head office in the UK that is actively trading and a branch office in Goa that is actively trading.
This is what my lawyer tells me. Your lawyer may tell you differently.

__________________
GoanGoan......here

goangoangone

Yes. And this is India.

greenchutney

OH!..not again....those three little words

'This is India'

dzibead

Yes, and Steve and June's first post talked about retiring to Goa, not conducting a legitimate business there, so one has to wonder about the comment about being a director and sole shareholder of an Indian company. If a person forms a sham business entity in order to circumvent the requirements of the FEMA, I'm sure that wouldn't withstand legal scrutiny, as the the latest RBI advisory indicates. And frankly, a business that has only one shareholder, who is a foreigner, is likely to raise a red flag for any regulatory body that's starting to look into these property transactions.