As per case facts, the appellant challenged a Single Judge's order which had set aside an arbitration award. The arbitral tribunal had ruled that the termination of a construction contract ... was illegal and the respondent in material breach, allowing some of the appellant's claims and rejecting the respondent's counterclaim. The respondent appealed this award, leading to the Single Judge's decision, which the appellant then appealed. Key issues included the contract commencement date, the necessity of a sanctioned building plan, and the extensions granted without imposing liquidated damages. The question arose whether the Single Judge was correct in intervening with the Arbitral Tribunal's award under Section 34 of the Act, particularly regarding the tribunal's findings on the contract's start date, the requirement for a building plan, and the unconditional nature of time extensions. Finally, the Appellate Court found that the Single Judge correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 34 and rightly determined that the impugned award was marred by patent illegality. The court agreed that the Arbitral Tribunal's basis for assigning responsibility, specifically concerning the contract's commencement date and the unconditional extensions of time, was perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.