AKIL KURESHI, J.

1. The petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent arising out of an agreement dated 24.10.2011 Relevant facts are as under:

2. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of offering knowledge services in the area of technology enabled learning. Respondent is an open university established under the law and is in engaged in imparting education in various fields with its headquarter at Ahmedabad. Respondent University was interested in offering educational courses in the field of Information and Technology. For such purpose, the University needed to collaborate with other agencies having know-how in the field. The petitioner claims to have developed a software known as KRPXG. After deliberations, the petitioner, the respondent University, one L&T Infotech and others entered into a multi-parte public-private partnership agreement on 24.10.2011 The main object was to offer various educational courses in the field of Information and Technology. The period of agreement envisaged was for five years, renewable with mutual consent. The agreement envisaged that large number of students would be enrolled for technology related courses in future years.

3. This agreement contained an arbitration clause in the following manner:

“10.5 Governing Law

This PPP Agreement is governed by and construed in accordance with the law in force in India and subject to Ahmedabad jurisdiction.

The Parties will consult together upon request of either Party regarding any matter relating to the terms of the Agreement, and will jointly resolve any issues which may arise in a spirit of co-operation and mutual trust. If the parties are unable to resolve the issues under this Agreement amicably, the matter shall be resolved in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The venue of Arbitration shall be Ahmedabad Jurisdiction.”

4. According to the petitioner, University failed to develop the course contents and curriculum, though that was primarily the responsibility of the University and instead this task was performed by the petitioner. After initial troubles, certain courses were developed and offered to the students. According to the petitioner, some contents of these courses were adopted from various web-sites. Unknown to the petitioner, such material was protected by copyright. The petitioner had not obtained consent of the copyright holder before using such material. According to the petitioner, the dispute between the petitioner and the copyright holder was resolved over a period of time to the satisfaction of both the sides. However, respondent University was not entirely happy with this development and various disputes between the two sides followed. The University alleged that the petitioner had indulged in plagiarism which had resulted into monetary and other losses to the University. The Board of Management of the respondent University, therefore, decided to conduct a mid-term review of the PPP project. The Board of Management, in its letter dated 13.6.2014 decided to discontinue the PPP agreement with immediate effect which was communicated to the petitioner under letter dated 18.6.2014 In this letter itself it was suggested that the issue of fee share of the petitioner be resolved through arbitrator. Relevant portion of this letter reads as under:

“The fourth meeting of the said committee was held on 13th June, 2014. Your representations by email on that date were also put before the committee. The minutes of the fourth meeting are enclosed herewith. According to the recommendations and the acceptance of the members of the Board of Management:

1. BAOU discontinues with immediate effect the PPP agreement between BAOU and AKS dated 24th October, 2011.

2. The Committee has recommended to take the decision regarding the payment or non-payment of the fee share demanded by the AKS via arbitration accordin