K. Raviraja Pandian, J.

This appeal is filed against the order dated 29. 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.188 of 2002 setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 29. 2001 non-suiting the first respondent for the claim made before him in the arbitration proceedings and granted a sum of Rs.25,87,500/-in respect of the first contract and Rs.27,46,990/- in respect of the second contract without interest.

2. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge has miserably erred in granting the relief as claimed by the first respondent while setting aside the award, which is beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 34 empowers the Court only to set aside the award on the stated contingencies. It never granted any power to the Court to pass an award treating the Court as an arbitrator.

3. However, Mr.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the order of the learned single Judge is perfectly correct and it is based on the interpretation of clause 43 of the agreement entered into by the parties.

.4. The mate