in Section 11(2) of the Arbitration Act. Thus, what would apply in the facts of the present case is Section 11(5) of the Arbitration Act and not Section 11(4) as contented by Learned Counsel for the Respondent. A plain reading of Section 11(4) makes clear that the same would apply only in the context of an arbitration with three arbitrators as more specifically provided in Section 11(3) of the Arbitration Act which is admittedly not what the present arbitration clause contemplates. Hence, reliance upon by Learned Counsel for the Respondent upon Section 11(4) of the Arbitration Act is not only misconceived but is also legally untenable. As per Section 11(5) if the parties within 30 days from invocation fail to agree upon the name of an arbitrator, the Party who has invoked arbitration can apply to the Court under Section 11(6). Thus, the invocation of arbitration and the agreement upon the name of an arbitrator are both separate and distinct. While an invocation notice may as a matter of convinience contain the name of a proposed arbitrator, the absence of such name would not render the notice invalid.
