JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (for short, Act of 1997) for appointment of an independent arbitrator. It appears that a memorandum of understanding (for short, 'MOU') was signed between the petitioner and the respondents whereby the petitioner was to train the students of the respondents-University at Rajouri. Details of the fee payable to the petitioner upon such training were reduced to writing in the said MOU, which was signed by the parties. The said agreement was to remain in force for a period of one year w.e.f., 07.08.2009. 2. According to Clause 14 of the MOU, the disputes, if any, arising out of and in connection with the MOU were to be initially resolved by mutual negotiations failing which the same were to be referred to a mutually agreed mediator. 3. According to Clause 15 of the said MOU, subject to clause 14 of MOU mentioned hereinabove, all claims, disputes, differences or disagreements of whatsoever nature arising out of or in connection with or in relation to this MOU, during or after the expiry of the term prescribed in the MOU was to be finally decided by way of arbitration to be held in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, Act of 1996) by a sole arbitrator whose decision was to be final and binding between the parties. 4. The short issue that requires to be considered is as to whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition and appoint an arbitrator in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1997 when the parties have agreed that the arbitration would be governed by the provisions of the Act of 1996. 5. Admittedly, only parts I, III and IV of the Act of 1996 insofar as it relates to international commercial arbitration or, as the case may be, international commercial conciliation are applicable to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Part-II of the Central Act of 1996 is applicable insofar as it pertains to enforcement of foreign awards. Other than the above, there is in force the Act of 1997, which governs arbitration matters in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Part-II of the Central Act of 1996 is applicable insofar as it pertains to enforcement of foreign awards. Other than the above, there is in force the Act of 1997, which governs arbitration matters in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Since the present case is not one pertaining to either international arbitration or conciliation nor one pertaining to enforcement of a foreign award, the same has to be governed by the Act of 1997. 6. In National Thermal Power Corporation v. Singer Company & ors., (1992) 3 SCC 551 , the Apex Court held as under: "25. The parties have the freedom to choose the law governing an international commercial arbitration agreement. They may choose the substantive law governing the arbitration agreement as well as the procedural law governing the conduct of the arbitration. Such choice is exercised either expressly or by implication. Where there is no express choice of the law governing the contact as a whole, or the arbitration agreement in particular, there is, in the absence of any contrary indication a presumption that the parties have intended that the proper law of the contract as well as the law governing the arbitration agreement are the same as the law of the country in which the arbitration is agreed to be held. On the other hand, where the proper law of the contract is expressly chosen by the parties, as in the present case, such law must, in the absence of an unmistakable intention to the contrary, govern the arbitration agreement which, though collateral or ancillary to the main contract, is nevertheless a part of such contract." 7. Although the dispute in the judgment (supra) pertained to an international arbitration, yet the principles to some extent would apply to the facts of the present case as well. In the present case, the parties have specifically agreed to the application of the laws, which would govern the arbitration agreement and that was the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which does not, admittedly, extend to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This court exercises its power under Section 11(6) as a Court as defined under the Jammu and Kashmir, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 and thus, would not enforce the rights of a party for appointment of an arbitrator when they specifically agreed to be governed by the provisions of the 1996 Act. This court exercises its power under Section 11(6) as a Court as defined under the Jammu and Kashmir, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 and thus, would not enforce the rights of a party for appointment of an arbitrator when they specifically agreed to be governed by the provisions of the 1996 Act. For the reasons mentioned above, it is held that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed.