ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday put to rest all controversy about the court`s jurisdiction to proceed with the Panamagate case after Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, assuming jurisdiction, ruled that the court can exercise its authority to take up the matter.

The five-judge bench headed by the chief justice assumed jurisdiction after all parties candidly conceded before the bench that the court could invoke and exercise its authority as given under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

The court cited a number of past cases to establish that there was precedent to suggest that the court was competent to hear the petitions, finally overruling the registrar office`s objections regarding the maintainability of the petitions.

On Thursday, even as Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif formally denied being the beneficial owner of any offshore entity, the court was displeased by the failure of his children Maryam, Hassan and Hussain Nawaz to file replies. However,the court allowed their counsel Salman Aslam Butt more time, saying they had to submit their statements by Monday.

The court also asked all parties to present proposals on how to regulate its proceedings,sothatitcouldpass a binding order on Monday regarding the appointment of a one-man commission, to be headed by a judge of the Supreme Court. The court also directed the parties to submit their respective terms of reference (ToR) positivelyby Thursday.

But the bench reiterated that it would not be bound by the ToR submitted by any party.

Dependants Earlier, during Thursday`s proceedings, Salman Aslam Butt told the court that none of prime minister`s children were his dependants, nor had any of them been mentioned as his dependant in the prime minister`staxreturns,wealth statement or nomination forms for the 2013 general elections, and the statement of assets and liabilities filed with the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP).

But Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed inquired about their replies, saying the real response had to come from them.`Do you represent them or not?` the judge asked and was answered in the affirmative by the counsel, who claimed that two of them were not in the country and that he still had to consult them.

`What about the one in Pakistan?` asked Justice Amir Hani Muslim when Justice Saeed reminded Mr Butt that Maryam Nawaz was accused of being the beneficial owner of an of fshore company.

Justice Saeed asked the counsel not to sidestep the issue, but Mr Butt narrated his predicament, saying that since he only had 24 hours to submit the prime minister`s reply, he could not consult his children.

He also claimed that Maryam Nawaz was not the prime minister`s dependant at the time when allegations were levelled regarding the ownership of the family`s London properties.

However, Justice Khosa observed that the allegation regarding beneficial ownership may not be correct, but not filing a reply, under the law, meant accepting the accusations.

However, the court allowed the counsel to submit the replies by Monday, after which no further request for adjournment on these grounds would be entertained.

During the proceedings, the chief justice also