Based on the provided legal document, the application of limitation in recall applications depends on the specific provisions invoked and the nature of the grounds for recall.

The document indicates that the recall application was filed under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which is an inherent power of the Tribunal. The Tribunal clarified that Rule 11 allows for recalling its judgments primarily in cases of procedural errors or fraud, including when a judgment was obtained by misrepresentation or suppression of material facts (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized that the power to recall is not akin to a review of the order on merits but is limited to correcting procedural errors or addressing cases where the order was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation (!) (!) . In the present case, the order was passed without hearing the respondents due to their absence caused by genuine medical emergencies, and it was found that the appellant had misled the Tribunal by suppressing material facts. The Tribunal held that such misrepresentation justified recalling the order, even if the original order was not challenged within the prescribed limitation period (!) (!) .

The document also notes that the statutory provisions governing appeals and procedural timelines do not bar the Tribunal from exercising its inherent powers to recall an order obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, regardless of the limitation period for challenging the original order (!) .

In summary, while limitation generally applies to appeals and certain applications, the Tribunal recognizes that its inherent power to recall an order, especially in cases involving fraud or misrepresentation, is an exception to the limitation principle. Such recall applications are considered on their merits, particularly when they involve correcting procedural errors or nullifying orders obtained through fraudulent means.