As per case facts, two appeals arose from a Single Judge's order modifying an arbitral award concerning a contract for setting up manufacturing units. The Single Judge partly set aside ... a claim for commitment charges and adjusted the interest rate on mobilization advance repayment. The contract involved a lock-in period and provisions for exit. Claimant alleged breach after respondent stopped procurement. The Arbitral Tribunal awarded commitment charges and reduced interest. The Single Judge, however, concluded the contract was terminated by conduct, limiting commitment charges and reinstating the original interest rate. The appeals challenge these modifications. The question arose whether the Single Judge’s modifications to the arbitral award under Section 34 were within the permissible scope of judicial intervention. Finally, the appellate court affirmed the Single Judge’s decision. It found the Arbitral Tribunal's interpretation of commitment charges implausible, noting that it calculated the ten-year period from production commencement instead of the contract date and overlooked party conduct indicating termination. Furthermore, the court held that the Arbitral Tribunal exceeded its authority by reducing the contractually agreed interest rate for the mobilization advance. The appellate court concluded that the Single Judge's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 was valid and not vitiated.