As per case facts, the Respondent, a small enterprise, entered into a contract with the Petitioner for the design, engineering, manufacture, supply, erection, and commissioning of an Electro Static Precipitator ... (ESP) for a power plant. Disputes arose regarding payments and breach of contract, leading the Respondent to seek arbitration under the MSMED Act. The Arbitrator allowed some of the Respondent's claims and rejected the Petitioner's counterclaims. Aggrieved, the Petitioner appealed to the High Court under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, primarily questioning the Arbitrator's jurisdiction on the grounds that the contract was a works contract, not merely a supply of goods or services, and thus outside the MSMED Act's purview. The question arose whether such a composite contract, involving both supply and extensive installation/commissioning, qualifies as a "works contract" and consequently falls outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal established under the MSMED Act. Finally, relying on Apex Court judgments, the High Court determined that the contract was indeed a works contract and not a simple supply of goods or services. Therefore, the sole Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction under the MSMED Act, rendering the Arbitral Award non est in the eye of law and setting it aside, with liberty for the parties to pursue remedies under appropriate legal frameworks.