ISLAMABAD, Sept 14 (INP): The Supreme Court observed on Thursday that documents submitted in court during the Panama Papers case proved that then prime minister Nawaz Sharif received a salary from a UAE-based company in August 2013. The observation came as the apex court's five-member bench, headed by headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, resumed hearing of review petitions filed by the Sharif family and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar against the apex court's judgment in the Panama Papers case on July 28. Other members of the bench include Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan — who along with the latter two headed the special implementation bench in the Panama case that oversaw the work of the Joint Investigation Team. Continuing his arguments from Wednesday, Nawaz's lawyer, Khawaja Harris, argued that Nawaz never claimed to receive any salary from FZE Capital. He added that a proper trial is needed for a lawmaker's disqualification, saying that if just his election was termed void then Nawaz would only have been barred for one term. Meet the five-member bench behind the Panama Papers verdict Justice Ejaz remarked that Nawaz Sharif did not declare a salary account and that documents submitted in court state that he received in August 2013 a salary in his FZE Capital account. He observed further that the relevant record in this regard is present in the JIT's Volume IX. Adding to this, Justice Ahsan remarked that Nawaz's employment number is 194811 and that documents state that he received a salary. Justice Azmat stated that the apex court made its decision in the case on verified facts. However, Harris reiterated that Nawaz never received any salary from FZE Capital in any of his accounts. As Harris resumed his arguments, Justice Azmat remarked that the counsel should "have faith in the court not the streets", adding that the court will ensure that no injustice occurs during the trial court proceedings. The bench further observed that the appointment of a monitoring judge is nothing new. After Harris completed his arguments, the finance minister's counsel, Shahid Hamid, began presenting his arguments. Hamid, in response to the court's judgment that Dar's assets grew unproportionate to his known sources of income, argued that his client's assets did not grow overnight but expanded over a course of 15 years. He also argued that the court needs to set boundaries of its jurisdiction, to which the bench responded that the boundaries are set from case to case. The bench also observed that the counsel should point out exactly what parts of the judgment he wants to be reviewed by the apex court. In his client's defence, Hamid informed the court that NAB in 2016 had cleared his client in the case of having assets beyong known means of income. The hearing was then adjourned until Friday.   INP/AK